DCB

Tender What glue did you use? I have glued motors on using Araldite in the past and it has held for ten years and then when I needed to change the motor it released when given a sharp tap. I guess that motor support also holds the layshaft down so maybe running without it will lead to gear mesh problems.

Looking at this trackplan I have grave doubts that it can be built, or if built if trains will run. The diamonds look skewed,and the three way points are either unlike any I have ever seen or the track kinks abruptly where the left road joins the next (reverse) curve. You can do a certain amount to a Peco 3 way to minimise this but the outer road at the coal yard for instance should swing a lot wider. The Turntable needs to be right in the corner as the lower road has an impossible kink where it joins the turntable and the straight roads kink and need a very short curve. So many lines parallel to the baseboard edge is somewhat toylike but SCARM encourages this. Curved platforms not only look better but trains run more smoothly through gentle (20 ft radius) curves. SCARM is a tool, like all tools it needs an experienced craftsman to get best results

Will they do 92021 with the BR1G tender? It just has to take my vote for the ugliest British loco of the 20th Century

A pic of my attempt to tame a similar beast I used a computer motor with a single start brass worm which meshes with the Triang worm wheel. Standard wheel centres had Triang Polly tyres fitted which at least let me see through the spokes but are now having tyres from wagon wheels fitted, not quite sure which size. I measured the plastic worm wheel at 18 teeth and I think the brass one which I fitted is 27 tooth it came from a Triang Power bogie but it is a bit difficult to count the teeth. The computer motor runs a lot slower than the scalextric original so it runs a lot slower but getting the meshing right has been a challenge and the chassis being plastic really needs bushing and building a brass chassis from scratch using the Hornby coupling rods would probably have been easier. My next problem is the crosshead, Not quite sure where to find anything that small in 00

The problem stems from a very coarse worm wheel, the Triang Dock shunter / Nellie/Polly / Connie worm wheel fits but the X04 worm is too big for the motor shaft. A romford 40:1 worm fits but is too big in diameter. With a single stat Triang TT worm sleeved to take the Hornby motor shaft you can get rid of the "Cogging" and thenyou can use DCC for a degree of control the prototype could only dream of. Those gears look excellent but the reduction is far too great with a 12 to one worm drive you are down to 8 rpm at the wheels which is around 1or 2 MPH However the gears look like fun and if you could do away with one of the stages of reduction and or arrange a 1:1 bevel drive to the axle it could work.

The layshaft idea is brilliant just as long as the body still fits! From the link it looks like a substantial flywheel could also be added between the motor and drop gears

The diamond is going to need an awful lot of cutting to get a consistent curve through it. I don't doubt it can be done and using Peco components cannibalised from old points would make a neat job if part of peco pointwork. As drawn the diamond has one curve crossing another which compounds the problem. The electrics complicate matters as live frogs are much easier to fabricate than dead ones, but you need a 4 pole double throw switch or relay to change the polarity. I would buy some second hand peco diamonds and start cutting and mix and match and see what you end up with.

The old smokey joe/ Desmond has a good top speed, Too fast for 2nd radius curves but good practice for aspiring Scalextric drivers. The worm wheel on my examples is very small and very coarse. A common 1960s Triang Polly/ Transcon/ Dock shunter gear wheel fits and a brass worm is available for the can motor which works better and gives smoother slow running without affecting top speed. The fine pitch single start worm to suit is only available to suit X04 armature shaft diameter. Romford worms. I think it is the 40 to 1 version fit the Polly gear wheel but they are bigger outside diameter and raising the motor slightly is a big task on the plastic Smoky Joe chassis. If you go to romford wheels with 1/8 axles then Romford 30 40 50 or 60 to 1 gears will fit if you file the chassis but again the motor needs to be raised at the worm end as the worm and worm wheel are both larger diameter. Doing this you can bush the axle holes with Romford bushes and extend the chassis life dramatically. I use Triang crank pins in Romford wheels, 0-6-0 /B12 at the front and longer Hall ones at the rear but it is a lot of work. I used a can motor from a computer disc drive which has a worm ready fitted which meshed but had to Araldite it in and solder new pick up wires. This was Ok but the plastic chassis wore, the valve gear was awful and the non see through wheels were more than I could stand. Currently I am trying to fit new tyres from some old 16MM plastic centred tender wheels to the non see through wheels plastic centres Maybe you should check out a new one? Have the model shop demonstrate it first in case it is the old version which has been in stock for 20 years.

The Atlas looks good I guess at 9" it is around a scale 55 foot so Manors, 43XX Std 4 etc. Halls might just squeeze on. but for a small layout it has to be an improvement on the Hornby /Peco/ Dapol 75 foot monsters I use a 10" cut down Dapol and it saved a huge amount of space in the MPD and still turns Duchess and A4 locos The whole disc turning is a bit toylike as is the dwell at each outlet of the motorised version There were a number of British tables where the well was boarded in but mainly in round houses I think. I found a video of a guy who built a deck onto an Atlas base. Personally I would use Dapol sides cut down if I could live with the whole disc turning However the dwelling at outlets makes it a no no for me so i for one will keep pushing my cut down Dapol around with my fingers.

Don't forget the front buffer beam is noticeably shallower on the 44XX, than the 45XX The Buffers are central and not offset 3" towards the bottom edge as per the 45XX. This is because the 44XX sits 3" lower on its 4' 1 1/2 " drivers than the 45XX on 4' 7 1/2 " This is surprisingly noticeable and is a useful distinguishing point between 44XX and 45XX in photos. The rear buffer beam is also 3" shallower and has a spacing block in front of the rear buffer beam showing where the bunker was extended probably in the 1920's The early 45XX also had this at least up until 4549 though 4555 on did not.

The outside steam pipes appeared when new cylinders and curved drop ends were fitted.

The GWR protocol was that for passenger safety concerns the front two compartments and the rear two compartments on a train were not to be used other than by railway staff, If there was a brake compartment at front and rear then this did not apply, hence the B sets. The GW liked Brake Composites as they included 1st 3rd and brake accommodation in one vehicle, so there were far more of one hand Brake Composites than the other. I am afraid I took a knife to a Centenary and an old Hornby Collett to change the hand of the corridor because having the corridor change sides annoyed me and I model late 50s BR A 1930 GW Coach formation book I read suggests the GW had very few fixed formation trains and most were formed (and reformed) of several portions, hence the untidy mixed look of most GW expresses of the 1930s CRE excepted

The motors shown are Tray Motors which just bang the disc tray in or out, no finesse required. The Disc motor is completely different and has multiple windings and no armature shaft as such and the Head motor is a [Edit] stepper [Edit] but has only one bearing the other being on the end of the long threaded shaft.. I have used these motors in Lima Diesels using 2X AA batteries as power to achieve a scale 40 mph on standard gearing, I found a standard Scalextric motor pinion fits the armature shaft and mates with the Lima gears. These cans have much better torque than the Lima motor and the speed remains much more even up hill and down on constant voltage than the standard Lima.

It is far from clear which lines are hidden and which on view especially as there seems no gap between tracks for the scenic break. Access to the hidden? tracks EMU sidings looks awkward but they would look good modeled as a scenic feature. My own uncompleted loft layout is designed so the fiddle yard is an on scene marshalling yard plus MPD and the off scene hidden storage is loops.

You have some very complicated track work there. I operate a fairly similar 5 platform terminus with far less complicated trackwork but more functionality. It has Up and Down (arrivals) main and a arrivals side relief or shunting neck serving platform 5. Our trains can depart platforms 1, 2 or 3 while arrivals arrive at 4 or 5 or arrive at 5 and depart from 4 simultaneously, or depart 1,2 or 3 arrive at 4 and shunt out of 5 at the same time. Only 5 has a run round. The reason is the prototype needs more departure platforms than arrivals In steam days trains would arrive and fairly swiftly the stock would be pulled off by the station pilot followed by the train engine, the loco waiting at the buffer stops for extended periods simply did not happen. Conversely stock for departures would sometimes be waiting for long periods, often two trains with departures an hour apart would be waiting at adjacent platforms . Bi directional running lines were pretty rare. So operationally, train arrives, pilot pulls the stock off and shunts it to a carriage siding releasing the train loco to shed for departures the pilot will usually propel the stock into the platform unless it is a major terminus with carriage sidings some way away when the pilot may well pull it to the platform, a la Kings Cross Padington etc and even bank the train away a la Glasgow Queen Street, however this looks fairly modest Cheltenham St James size so the pilot would most likely propel from sidings within the station area. Your platform 5 is essentially useless, and there are far too many single slips, none is a god idea to simplify the wiring, so can i suggest you work out what moves you want to perform and redesign accordingly. Parallel movements always look great so try and design them in.

Interesting thread resurrected, the thing about Dorchester is the GW West and SR South stations were both north of the junction so South saw only SR trains and West only GWR trains. However the "Okehampton" line saw 2 WR workings per day each day in the same way the SR provided power for 2 Exeter Plymouth locals each way along the GW line along the south Devon coast, I am not sure if Green SR stock was used on the WR line but in GWR Days LMS and LNER stock worked to Plymouth and beyond both as complete rakes and as through coaches. The GWR Taunton Barstaple line was restricted to certain Taunton based 43XX which had their footsteps trimmed back for clearance. 2251 class of which Taunton had several were also allowed as were bulldogs Dean Goods etc in earlier days but No Manors Halls etc. Taunton (GW) locos also worked through to Ilfracombe. The SR was very fond of portional working, West of Okehampton 3 or 4 coaches was the norm even with a Bullied pacific, only the daily Plymouth Brighton train had a decent load throughout normally 8 coaches. Before the coming of the Pacifics in ludicrously large numbers a fleet of 4-4-0s happily and economically ran these trains and even in Pacific days the last T 9 s worked out their days on 3 coach locals until replaced by standard tanks displaced by suburban electrification . N class moguls were the SRs main "Heavy" goods locos between Exeter and Plymouth but like the GW Newton Abbott to Plymouth line loads were light by north country standards. Tavistock SR would make a great model as would Meldon, where the Viaduct would make a great lift out section...

The old Triang 31 is pretty nasty as it has plastic armature bearings, a plastic fatigue prone brush holder and plastic axles and effectively all the driving wheels are insulated, the Lima Chassis is a much better bet as the trailing bogie has a plastic frame to which a skate or pair of plunger pickups can be fitted. I doubt the current B12 motor is up to hauling H/D stodk, but I do have several older Triang B12 and Hall chassis with various bodies and Hornby Dublo (2 rail) wheels weighted down with lead. However they can't equal a Hornby Dublo Castle pulling power being limited to 7 Triang Coaches up a 1 in 35 where the Castle takes 9 or to 15 H/D wagons where the Castle takes 19., and an 8F takes 22 or more

I have done quite a few conversions the other way 3 rail to 2 rail and just a couple from 2 to 3 rail and the main problems are finding somewhere for the pickups and getting adequate traction, with plastic bodies. Even standard 3 rail locos are a bit feeble traction wise compared to 2 rail my old H/D Duchess of Montrose used to struggle with 4 coaches in 3 rail days, now with 26mm Romfords and 2 rail converted it sails along with 8 heavy H/D coaches and has managed 24 mixed Hornby/ Bachmann / Lima coaches.. There is little room under most 1960s to 80s Triang Hornby chassis as the centre gear wheel prevents the use of the H/D "Spoon" type pickups so when I did convert a Triang Jinty chassis to 3 rail for a Gaiety Pannier and I had to use two pickups one in front of the worm wheel and one behind, each with just one contact and fixing them to the chassis was not easy.. I think If I were converting a tender engine to 3 rail I would use the castle or 8F 3 rail tender with the vertical plunger pickups either as is behind suitable locos or as a pattern. but I would suggest that you use cast white metal kit bodies to get enough weight to pull a reasonable load..For wheels Non Insulated Romfods on Markits Triang conversion axles might be an answer Ironically the flanges on the early Triang chassis with mazak wheels can easily be ground down to suit H/D rail but the 60/70s wheels with steel tyres cannot easily be turned down..

Pictures at last of my class 37 power bogies with computer motors held by simple straps across the standard Lima fixing screws. done 5 years ago approx, mine run on battery power.

Great Deck, but in every Plate Girder Bridge I have seen the girders rest on the pillars which are wider than the girders, your girders overlap the supports, just a thought.

I would either drive the front or rear axles (Or both) or change to all flanged wheels. I am sure powering a non flanged wheel will result in broken coupling rods, My K's 42XX snapped its coupling rods as did my K's Dean Goods chassis. A friend has a white metal 00 gauge 47XX with all wheels flanged which copes with 19" radius curves and 2ft radius points. However it is slow and lacks power and traction due to a Mw 005 5pole X04 clone motor with 40 :1 gears. X04 s don't like metal bodies in my experience. With their limited sphere of operation, fast freights and Saturday relief passengers a model 47XX does really need to be both fast and powerful so being something of a phillistine and with a 47XX planned using a Hornby King I would look into a big tender mounted motor.driving one or more Loco axles through a driveshaft with a universal joint., or powering the loco and having a tender drive unit as well. . bigherb, The idea that it is not the number of wheels but the weight on them that limits traction is not my experience. More weight does give more traction but with diminishing returns and in my experience with a given weight increasing the number of wheels in contact with the track also increases traction. I have proved this with weighting various locos and noticed how a brass chassis under my 28XX pulled much better with 8 flanged romfords than with 4 fanged and 4 non flanged which did not actually touch the rails. Even for a given weight a 4 wheel chassis pulls best with the weight evenly distributed. Nose heavy 4-6-0 locos never pull as well as Pacifics with equal weight but more evenly distributed and a Wrenn 8F with a big Ringfield Motor in the cab pulls 32 wagons where my K's ROD body on another Wrenn 8F chassis and of equal weight but nose heavy with a computer motor in place of the Ringfield can barely manage 18.

I have used a hand held with an On Track controller for years with no real problems, the hand held contains just the centre off potentiometer and connects with just three wires, in my case using a big stereo jack plug and socket on the baseboard edge pointing downwards so it pulls out when I step on the wire. The advantage is the hand held stays cool. The Morley ises the same principle, both are variable voltage not pulse power and depending on the unit can give smooth starts and slow running, but with the proviso that the N gauge OhTrack gives smooth starts and poor top speed on 00 while 00 unit gives good speed but is difficult to judge slow speeds due to a 150 degree sweep from stop to top speed. The only problem has been stepping on the 3m long lead, sort of cured by not using the 4 pin Din Plugs but putting a Stereo Jack plug on the lead, actually I built a very small hand held with a potentiometer and large knob I can use one handed which has a sterep jack plug at the hand held end which nworks well

As GWR locos were serviced on a mileage basis and from memory this was about 90 000 miles a simple job like the Halls would have been in works every 15 to 18 months for at least an intermediate overhaul, at which swapping steel sheets for cabside windows would have been quite simple and straight forward. Painting would probably have had to wait for a heavy overhaul which would involve a boiler change where a lot of boiler cladding and cab panels would have been disturbed and would need repainting. One or two LMS locos survived the war in pre war red but they seemed to work on the basis of if it ain't broke don't fix it rather than any logical system of preventative maintenance.

The layout I operate works well with the 6 loops and 6 dead end sidings under the terminus. The down side is trains to the terminus are generally banked up the 1 n 30 ish as some Bachmann and Hornby bwith decoders and tender pick ups struggle with 3 coaches, though the bankers can manage 7 which is all the platforms hold anyway. However because of heavy framing and limited clearance "fiddling" has to be restricted to the siding nearest the operating well and the dead end. usually the MO is a terminating train stops a fresh engine is attached to the back. the train loco cut off and the fresh loco pulls the stock out and then backs into another siding allowing the incoming loco to go on shed. If its a goods the brake van is cut off first and shunted by hand to the back of the train, if re marshalling is needed then it has to be in the road nearest the operating well. It works for us, but a lot depends on detail. for instance the H/D peco couplings we use and indeed and Kadee couplers are vastly better at reversing than Tension lock couplers and nice smooth 3 ft radius points are much less derailment prone than set track points so we can habitually reverse 20 wagon goods through point work involving reverse curves with very few derailments. Some of our coaches have tension lock couplers within the rakes but these have been moved back to shorten the distance between coaches so the gangways almost touch with buffers retracted, and the heights carefully matched and the back to backs set to 14.25mm to ensure that reliability. My incomplete loft layout has low level hidden loops which can feed either up or down main line with an MPD station and marshalling sidings on the visible level with again gradients around 1 in 30 but it is horribly over complicated and work ground to a halt 10 years or so ago as I just can't figure out how to make it work . Though the intention was to fiddle in the marshalling sidings and send goods out and back with layovers in the hidden loops. And as a concept marshalling and remarshalling trains, changing engines etc in a series of visible sidings is probably more satisfying than having a set of storage sidings pretending to be a station as many people do, where trains sit for hours at platform in through stations, but its your choice, you use set track and tension lock couplers of you want, you can always take up crochet when you get so sick of the derailments that you put a sledge hammer through the whole ****** mess

I like the idea of a floating tender chassis where the rear axle takes the tender body weight at the back and the front of the tender body rests on the loco chassis with the rest of the tender chassis just taking it's own weight. I have several Airfix Truro kits but the smokebox looks too small for a Std 4 and maybe too big for a No2 and in all the photos and drawings I have seen the frames should drop down behind the rear bogie wheel and just beyond the steps, not over the rear bogie axle, and that stuidly enough really bugs me and has stopped various schemes for a bulldog or Dukedog in their tracks. The ultimate haulage power solution might be a K's powered tender chassis with an additional shaft driving the loco wheels through a universal joint and suitable gearing. City of Truro may have hauled light trains in her Ocean Mails days and final DNS duties but in preservation she has hauled 8 and more, I remember her slipping furiously at Bridegnorth in the 1980s and I think she took 7 up Sapperton Bank during the GWR 150 in 1985, I might be wrong memory fades.