DCB

I always thought the Britannia started as an LMS proposal for as large wide boiler mixed traffic loco like the LNER V2 with a target like the MN to run 600 tons at 60 mph, not 400 at 75mph as per Express Passenger locos. Obviously the design morphed and lost its way gaining a leading bogie, losing a couple of much needed tons of axle weight and being tarted up to look like something vaguely German which I suppose saw and liked when out abroad in 1944/45. Back in the late 1940s the only double chimneys used successfully in the UK were on three and four cylinder locos. The LNER had about a dozen 4X A4 1 X A 3 1 X A1(?) W1(?) and some A 2s, The LMS 50? Duchesses, Turbomotive and Jubilee/ Scot rebuilds. The 2 cylinder ones, Flying Pigs, the first County, Black Fives were pretty lame, some were re converted to single chimney with great improvement, so once the decision to fit the Brit with only two cylinders had been reached there was no successful UK double chimney arrangement to copy. Also in the late 40s small blastpipe orifices and more superheat which reduces exhaust pressure were the fashion as there was a desire to burn huge amounts of cheap coal instead of sensible amounts of decent coal, Kings, etc had their variable blastpipes (Jumper tops) removed and the nozzles sleeved. Whether the Brits would have been better with double chimneys is difficult to answer, they may have been faster but they seemed plenty fast enough already, but Riddles would have been in deep doo doo if his shiny new nationalised loco hadn't steamed. The 9F is a bit of an enigma, After the first batch they were fitted with 4MT regulators which effectively meant they couldn't be opened up beyond 2/3rds throttle. This only seemed to affect them while running very fast at full regulator ( as in slipping furiously) which is odd. Their initial duties were at Ebbw Vale where the GW plotted a King Boilered 2-10-0 at one time and actually tested Kings on these heavy (Iron ore?) trains, very successfully. More successfully than the 9Fs managed initially. It could be said a King could cope with 9F duties just as capably as a 9F could run King turns. Ell discovered 9Fs would be more economical pulling 600 ton at 60 mph with double chimneys so they altered the ones under construction and the few that had heavy general overhauls at Swindon pre 1960 ish, the fact they didn't actually get to pull 600 tons at 60 mph was sort of forgotten, so they ended up with a heavy goods loco capable of 2000 hp and 92 MPH Whooppee. The design really vindicated itself when 92220 pulled a 410 ton Pines Express single handed over the S&D on the last day. The use of a big powerful loco like the 9F running at such high rotational speeds was unprecedented in the UK, Churchward disliked asymmetric crossheads as they gave uneven piston wear and excessive piston and ring wear seemed to be the 9Fs achilles heel. Maybe if they had been fitted with LMS style cylinders and valve gear they would have suffered less wear and been more useful on fast workings. The other question which bugs me is why on earth didn't they put the Brit Boiler and trailing truck on Duke of Gloucester

There is a thread on track spacing on here with lot info. Ballast, old rails, kebab boxes between tracks help give that 2000s era look. Much of the WCML was widened as cheaply as possible and lacks the "Ten foot" between pairs of tracks but you need to get down to 42 or 44mm track spacing to make that work. Mine is 50mm std streamline and looks horrible.

There are multiple schools of thought re code 75 vs code 100 and of how to hold tracks down. I think it is very much horses for courses. Code 75 looks good, cuts easier than code 100, solders easier, ought to be cheaper (!) with less material but should not be as good for carrying DCC power with smaller cross section and smaller fishplates, but DCC usually uses multiple droppers and Bus bars and the code 75 is easier to solder to, I have only seen N/S code 75. I feed power for well over 20 feet with out droppers or additional feeds in code 100 steel in my loft on DC with no discernible voltage or speed drop. 75 should curve better and have less tendency to straighten out on curves but a greater tendency to kink at fishplates. Code 100 is more robust, 40 year old code 100 points are still working well while 75 has not been around so long, code 100 can take a wider variety of wheels than 75. I guess the cross over between the two comes at 2ft radius. My experience is curves less than 2ft radius in flexi track are a PITA and it keps trying to straighten out. Using set track curves for sub 2ft curves makes life so much easier, even if you have to cut the sleeper webs and adjust the radius and cut to length like flexi. I don t know of any code 75 set track. so I would suggest code 100 for small layouts with sub 2ft radius curves. I would not use set track points as they are so toy like and give ridiculously wide track spacing, great for 13" radius... Securing track again is preference, set track is fine with double sided tape, flexi needs more positive restraint, especially on sharp curves, I drill sleepers with a small drill bit in a pin chuck or archimedian drill , code 100 steel flexi, sharp curve, hot day and the track rips out of the rail chairs. Ballasting changed with the years, look at photos of the full size not models. There should be a walking route of cess beside the tracks and a cess between pairs of tracks. No four evenly paralell tracks like I made the mistake of laying 30 years ago. Underlay gives a good crisp ballast shoulder effect and for 1920s to 2000s is better than most modelers attempts. The ballast shoulders stayed crisp right to the end on branch lines and then deeper ballast came in post branch line era (- 1965) so the scruffy mess ballast many layouts sport is only prototypical for 2000s disused main lines used occasionally for private siding traffic (Okehampton) For ultimate speed on a continuous run micro layout Triang track takes some beating, huge rails and huge flanges, scale 125 mph round 15" radius curves, Great fun!

When I started in the motor trade in a British Leyland dealership 1973 the cars arrived covered in wax, whether driven or delivered by transporter and I believe this had been the accepted method of avoiding damage to paintwork for many years previously. The wax had the appearance of milky matt varnish, very matt no shine what so ever. It washed off with paraffin to leave a factory fresh ripply orange peel effect with occasional blemishes we had to touch up before sale. The cars were painted body colour underneath and we undersealed them with black gunge after the pre delivery inspection. The cars came without number plates, and the BL ones had just two brackets for the front plate, there was no backing plate. Equally the back panel had a number plate light but no backing plate and some people fitted seven digit in line number plates and some two row "Square" plates to the same model. We always preferred "New" cars to be delivered by road. we were about 45 miles from Longbridge 30 from Cowley. The delivery drivers gave the cars a good thrashing and bedded in the piston rings before some old codger spent 1000 miles driving at 38 mph to run it in. If it came by Transporter he old codger got it with 5 miles on the clock and crawled around at 38 mph it glazed the piston rings and the oil consumption was hopeless, mind you BL reckoned 350 miles per pint of oil was acceptable oil consumption! The awkward problem with representing new car trains as opposed to the public "Motorail" service is the cars were all new and current models, many models changed on a 3 or 4 year cycle so really only the Minic Hillman Imp and BMC 1100 (62 - 72?) covers a reasonable number of years.

The underlay gives a realistic ballast shoulder which is a feature of the vast majority of full size lines, unlike the scruffy mess where ballast blends with the lineside which many modelers end up with. This is fine for a disused quarry line or circa 1880 but nothing like a modern main line or post grouping steam era main or branch line.

Don't keep us in suspense, what size did you use? I used some galvanised channel for a 00 branch line across a door which can't have been much over 40mm inside and once I changed the flexitrack for 26" set track straights it was fine, but I couldn't keep the flexi from snaking and causing trains to rub the sides.

But which design of miniature tension locks? The old 1960s wagons had neat coupling mounts but some more recent attempts have ugly moulded carbunkles and retrofitting is approaching scratch building by the time a satisfactory mount has been cobbled together.

To be honest I don't think anything ever had 3'9" wheels and such a long wheelbase, 7'3" X 8'1" is very long for a shunter and most mainliners had 4'6" wheels or thereabouts (GWR under Dean excepted). The GWR 1366 for instance had 5' X 6' with 3'9" wheels. The 2021 used the same chassis as the 64XX 7'4" X 7' 4" but with 4' 1 1/2" (16.5mm ) wheels and 6400 was originally a 2021 class loco. 54XX /74XX also used this chassis with various size wheels and the running plate is higher on the 54XX and lower on the 2021 so the buffers have to be moved up or down the buffer beam to compensate (see also 44XX/ 45XX) The BR built 16XX was different as BR liked Non Standard designs. The 850 was a sort of pre Mk1 2021 with a shorter firebox and 7' 4" X 6' 4" wheelbase, 6' 4" at the firebox end, I don't know of anything which the H/D Wrenn R1 chassis is correct for but if you use Romford wheels and Mainline 22XX or Bachmann 57XX rods and re drill the front axle hole you have a very nearly a GWR Big pannier, 27/57/94XX class 7'3" X 8' 3" chassis, and if you shim the worm wheel you have a chassis which will run for years. One of mine has a K's Mk 2 5 pole armature and runs very smoothly and is so weak it can barely slip when over loaded. The H/D Castle and City chassis are very nearly right for the 2021/ 64/16XX etc but the gearwheel is too big, My 56XX has Triang gears grafted to a H/D castle Ring Field motor, but the 1/2" motor can be lowered by filing the chassis to mate with an R1 worm wheel. These mods are time consuming but the resulting chassis will run for years!

Biggest problem is cost, 4X motor gearbox units for a BoBo or 6X for a CoCo, but its the only practical way to get the suspension moving on diesels and to me those compensating beams being frozen is as bad as the frozen Triang Valve gear on their Princess.

I would worry about not having overload protection on a wall wart, equally batteries pack a lot of amps if shorted. The lower voltage you can get away with PWM the better your locos will like it, maybe get one of those variable voltage power packs from Maplin etc with various tappings from 1.5 to 14 volts. It is ideal if the PWM control has to be flat out for your locos top speed as the motors run much smoother with wider pulses than higher voltages and short ones.

It would be interesting to know on what sort of controller this is, generally the chassis will run at the same speed on the same voltage, H and M Safety Minor, Playcraft, Morley and On Track and my diode controller all provide a constant voltage and pretty constant speed depending on the knob setting, most others are resistance controllers which give a constant VA and widely different speeds depending on all sorts of variables, while some are PWM and proceed in a series of rapid jerks. I lash up a 1960s Triang DMU with a 2000s Bachmann with no hassle. It is a bit crazy that DMUs are supplied without working couplings when I believe Class 158s and 170s often run in multiple from Inverness to Perth where they divided for instance, and I believe 156s used to divide at Crianlarich and Fort William on a several times a day basis. 156s ran as 3 car sets in their early days and the old Lima 156 had spare couplings so 2/3/4/5/6 car units could be formed.

You must be doing something pretty brutal as our weighted 42XX with a H/D hook grafted to one of these couplings will pull 20 odd Hornby Dublo wagons and with a pilot dragged them up a 1 in 36. Obviously we don't twist the couplings as the H/D type just lift without twisting. They fall out on the track of course. I got fed up with tension locks 50 years ago when I had my first Triang set after starting with Hornby Dublo. I always fancied the N gauge coupler for 00 if I was starting again, but your couplings will keep breaking if you twist the vehicles apart. I suggest you uncouple before lifting them....

It is odd that the oldest 00 Black Five I know of the Graham Farish has the best tender pick up arrangement I know of with metal side frames and split axles. It is a great shame split axle wheelsets are so rare these days as you get pickup but virtually no drag. Lightening the Railroad Black Five tender and removing the pick ups added 2 coaches to the 3 it managed to pull up our 1 in 36 gradient, somewhat short of the Wrenn Castle with 10..... In my case the pickups also bridge some of our isolated sections so removing them is an even bigger bonus.

The Hornby Dublo Duchess won't take even 26mm Romfords (should be 27mm) 22mm as std, without filing away bits of motor, Mine has Triang crankpins in front and rear drivers and Hornby Dublo return cranks in H/D insulated bushes in the drilled centre wheel threads, The rods need spacing away from the wheels on the insulated side with thin washers as the rims are insulated not the wheels. The old H/D Duchess looks the part cruising down theTrent Valley at 70 with 15 coaches, the new one looks good on shed, however the H/D looks rough on shed and the new Hornby wont pull 15 coaches......

This is as much a track design problem as a wiring problem. If it has dead frogs on DC apart from a couple of kick back sidings it just needs a couple of controllers connected to a couple of feeds in each circuit (by my arrows see plan). It needs on / off switches between controllers and track unless they are centre off non electronic types and the discipline to turn one controller off when crossing trains from inside track to outside or vice versa, or turn them the same way for a very good burst of power. Turning them opposites will cause a short circuit. Basically kick backs apart set the crossovers, turn one controller off and drive across the crossover on the other controller. DCC as above just only one controller If its live frog forget it. Rip it up start again. The track plan is bad for UK running, 99+% of UK trains run left hand road. Bi directional running is signalled in a few places and bi directional running with trains overtaking was done between Blair Atholl and Dalnaspidal for a few years, while the West Highland runs right hand road at the loops. The station trackwork is very unprototypical ugly and difficult to operate, you need to reverse into sidings to shunt If three left hand points are changed to right hand to become "Trailing" (reverse across) rather than "Facing" (Go across forwards) crossovers you can get a more prototypical arrangement, but a single platform on one side was sort of a pre 1850 idea brought back in the 1980s (thinking Ribblehead here) and very unusual. If the track is down, its Live frog, and you didn't fit isolators just pull the lot up and start again with a different layout, maybe with fiddle yard and loops one side and a station the other.

I can't remember seeing a fold out layout plan in any model railway magazine ever, and I have read most of the Railway Modeller, Model Railway Constructor, Model Railway News, Hornby Magazine, mainstream publications over the past 40 years. I gave not bothered much with the fine scale publications as I like my locos to stay on the track and not shed handrails and other detail parts every time I pick them up. Only fold outs I remember are in US magazines and that might just be the centre pages coming loose!

Are you getting erratic sound as well? If so is it at a specific place on the layout. Poor match of track to wheel profile can lead to issues with pickup as many wheels run on the gauge corner rather than the rail top giving a very narrow contact patch easily affected by even small amounts of dirt. Make sure the inside corners of the rails and the root of the flange on the wheel sets are clean, Just wiping a track rubber flat across the track does not get the job done. Full size track is angled in by 20% as per some new 00 bullhead track which should deliver much better running if they ever make compatible points.

The design is 50 years old Hornby Dublo and they went broke around 1965. I'm not sure about being to scale but we have a rake of 7 (maybe 8 have to check) and they run beautifully on Peco code 100 track, much better than Hornby Hawkesworths, Bachmann, Lima etc, by some margin the best coaches we have, They run beautifully like all Hornby Dublo as they have metal bogies but significantly lighter than Hornby Dublo Tinplate so even modern locos can haul a reasonable train. Ours were bought new from Hattons initially as odd coaches and then built into a complete set. If you want to run trains they are brilliant, If you want a pullman or 10 for a diorama get a mortgage and buy new modern Hornby.

I have never even seen a Dapol 68 but I wonder if the pickups are damaged or displaced putting the whee sets out of line offset to one side or the other. 14.4 mm ish is right for 00 .

The wheels are about 19mm ish over treads and the wheel flanges on early ones can be turned down in a drill chuck and the tyre flanges on later ones can be turned down in a lathe to run on even code 75 track. Best to make a mandrel to take the tyres rather than try to turn the wheels complete with tyres down. Bigger problems are the whole thing is too long, the smokebox is too fat, should be the same as a 2251 or 94XX, and the coupled wheelbase is far too long. On the plus side the early chassis have brake gear cast on. Mine had about 10mm removed from the tanks and various other places and had a Hornby Dublo 4MT chassis converted to ring field magnet and with R1 wheels again too small fitted but it was a very powerful performer and looked vaguely like a BR Std tank. Sadly the Bachmann looked so much better that withdrawal was inevitable and it languishes unloved in the loft its chassis awaiting conversion to a GWR 15XX 0-6-0pt. I think princess wheels are 22mm over treads, I think Std 3s were 5' 3" as were the Std 4MT 2-6-0s so about 21mm and a rare size in pre millennium RTR, Airfix GWR 14XX and LMS 4F possibly the best source as lets face it no way is a Triang 3MT worth buying ultra scale or Romford wheels for!

Be very careful as X04 magnets can lose a lot of magnetism when removed and refitted, as I found last evening swapping a "good" magnet which would lift my screwdriver from a dead X04 into a sluggish X04 with a weak magnet which would not lift the screwdriver I would go the change the insulated sleeve route as first choice.

The biggest difference between Saint wheels and Star/Castle is the crank throw which is 15" on the Saint and 13" on the Castle to give piston strokes of 30" and 26" respectively. This is very noticeable giving the Saint a big loping gait wereas the Castle and Star are positively effeminate. The Saint Running plate is probably a couple of inches higher than the production Stars to clear the big end though I have not read confirmation of this. Did Swindon cast their own wheels? I have read that only Crewe works had a steel foundry and that Darlington bought in wheel castings so did Swindon do likewise?

Sounds the solder might melt at the same temp as the white metal so you might have to resort to selective surgery / bodgery with razor saw and drills to separate the ends so you can true it and spread the floor. I have soldered white metal kits with electrical solder for years, actually welded white metal by melting edges together at times and the results wont come apart, which is a shame as they aren't exactly brilliantly square... The upside is if a kit has been soldered with electrical solder it will be robust and of course if you source some similar solder you can build up any gaps rather like welding new metal into an old motorbike engine. I once lengthened a K's 44XX bunker to make a 1930 s style 44XX by adding electrical solder to fill the resulting gap after cutting.

Never throw nowt out, thee never knows when thee'l need ont. They could be handy when HSTs are hurtling around 1st radius curves at Mach 1

Fowler Locomotives by Brian Haresnape, SBN 7110 0374 2 has a pic of 1108 (Built Derby 1925) in Crimson with coat of arms on the cab side coupled to the tender off 1102 (also Derby 1925) with number on the tender side. He also states WW2 ended the red livery but some retained red livery into BR days and 40934 was probably the last in red into late 1951.