Revolution Mike

I don't think you are being fussy at all - seems like a bit of a mess (and the cab dome is still the wrong shape). Cheers, Mike

One of the Hornby reps at Warley (not Simon K) was saying that they expected 2 of the 3 to be available just before Christmas. Cheers, Mike

I would definitely go for some type of better track - it makes a world of difference. If you don't want to go 2mm FS (which I can fully understand) then you can either ease out flangeways as Cav suggests or buy point kits from Finetrax: http://www.britishfinescale.com/ Well worth the effort IMHO. Cheers, Mike

Of course they would understand if you add the rider of year, but that isn't what you had posted (nor do I agree that little has changed in 50 years).

Apart from the massive changes in livery (green to blue to sectorisation to privatisation etc), types of traction (shift from loco hauled to units for passengers), privatisation etc. Wholesale modernising of track and infrastructure. "Modern image" alone is fairly meaningless when you think it covers potentially 50+ years, just like saying steam era isn't particularly helpful in narrowing down someone's interests. Cheers, Mike

Thanks for the update Steven - disappointing news! Particularly given it was announced in 2010 (or earlier?) and we have seen CAD and an mock up... Cheers, Mike

I'm afraid I do disagree - Dave is doing exactly the right thing by trying to work these things out before finalising the CAD. If we discount the 2 motor option then there is no reason why any of the suggestions should increase price. The trick is to not try and re-invent the wheel, but look at the best examples from other N gauge manufacturers from around the globe. Cheers, Mike

Provided there is nothing visible above the window level and it is not in a bright visible colour I don't see a problem with things intruding in the cab. Go with the 2 axle drive and performance may be just like the real thing Cheers, Mike

Now, I'm interested! Any details of his layout? Is he modelling in 2mm? I am modelling Whitehaven and strangely enough will need similar stock ;-) Cheers Mike

Great work Mark! Looking forward to getting some KFAs. Cheers, Mike

Crikey - who would have thought the NSA were interested in N gauge modelling, thought they would be too busy intercepting all our emails!

Hi Mark I would get your's right rather than trying to match to Dapol's - you have corrected the outrigger locations so it would be a shame to compromise on the headstocks. I agree with Ben in that I would rather use your correct single unit FEAs when you produce them than convert an incorrect Dapol twin set. Cheers, Mike

FSA/FTA or KFA would be very useful! Cheers, Mike

Isn't the single unit FEA the FEA-S? Or is that different again? Anyway the guys on the N gauge forum are doing a conversion kit for the Dapol FEA twins to the single unit used for RHTT (along with the various modules). Cheers, Mike

Hi David Who knows! It seems so random at times eg stuff announced after the Pacer has long been out but no sign of the Pacer making its appearance! Cheers, Mike

Something Dapol do in 4mm (and it is frustrating they haven't been scaled down yet!). Cheers, Mike

Hi Mark I fear you have come up against one of the problems I struggle with! I wouldn't worry too much about the material cost - the marginal difference shouldn't make that much difference. On having to design to suit the material/process tolerances rather than to scale - that is a really difficult one. I think that we all accept compromises where they are necessary. Cheers, Mike

Hi Mark I've just noticed this shot on Martyn's site: http://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/UKRailRollingstock/K-Tops-codes/KTA-Pocket-Intermodal-wagons/i-BrPm7Mp It looks like an I-beam type construction that follows the struts where the cut outs are. This pic might help as well: http://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/UKRailRollingstock/K-Tops-codes/KTA-Pocket-Intermodal-wagons/i-CSD5jRQ Cheers, Mike

Hi David Personally I think it is better and (for me) therefore worth it. WSF doesn't do it for me, though have you tried polished WSF? Of course the simple solution is to let the purchaser choose the material. Cheers, Mike

Hi Mark Looks good to me. I've just noticed on Martyn's picture there are some beams underneath the cylinder end (and presumably at the opposite end) ie it has the cylinders, cylinder framework, floor with cutouts, supporting beams then bogies - see here: http://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/UKRailRollingstock/K-Tops-codes/KTA-Pocket-Intermodal-wagons/i-3RN2rxJ/A They are basically similar to the support beams you have under the well floor. You might not be able to fit them in if they interfere with the bogie. Cheers, Mike

Hi Mark I try to draw as much as possible in distinct modular units so I can a) re-use them and perhaps more importantly b) when I make a mistake it is easier to rectify on one small-ish part than having to re-design large chunks of the model! Anyway hope the floor re-design isnn't too painful! Cheers, Mike

Hi David You might find this page useful for the KUA: http://s374444733.websitehome.co.uk/kua/index.htm I would treat the dimensions with caution given how many iterations he has been through, but it might help confirm some of your own workings. Look forward to seeing your stuff over the weekend. Cheers, Mike

Not at all - I would just rather see a 92 and 85 (and some EMUs) rather than another 87 or 90....

Merciful Fate - Melissa (Pharoah smiley seems appropriate!)

But (as you've identified) growing the market requires more than just a re-tool of an existing model. The Farish 90 is not so awful (unlike say the 56) that modellers can't work with it. I agree, though Dapol's problems have also been partly of their own making ie announcing the 92 and Pendolino without thinking through the tooling needed for the latter or the impact of "low" sales of the former. On the Mk 3s they botched the supply chain so getting Mk 3 coaches can be nigh on impossible at times with either "normal" (1st and 2nd) coaches out of stock or buffets not made yet. Cheers, Mike