leezer3

Definitely Hornby power cars. You can tell by the body fixing lugs under the doors / below the grilles and the horrid wheels.

These are produced by a member of our club, and all our layouts have them. Generally very good, but have a slight delay between the turn of the knob / app and the reaction of the loco on track that you don't get with a conventional controller. Great for continous running, but not ideal for shunting. If you drop Ian a message, he'll probably be happy to chat :)

Very possibly. I'll note that having dug into it a bit, they actually produced the whole thing as solid whitemetal first before dropping to just the cabs. Exactly what it was will be lost to the mists of time unless someone on here picked the thing up :P

With regards to the HST conundrum, I ran across on a second-hand stall at an exhibition several years ago a pair of prototype HST power cars. My thoughts at the time were scratchbuilt, but this makes me wonder. Blue-grey livery, and IIRC somewhat dodgy paintwork but reasonably well built. Didn't purchase mind, so no images or anything.

I've got all 5 D600s courtesy of KMRC. It's all 5 livery variants too, which wasn't strictly intentional but is probably actually reasonably prototypical..... (Green, Green SYP, Green FYE, Blue SYP, Blue FYE)

Painted red makes me wonder if its actually the very similar DHP1 on test. https://m.facebook.com/groups/ProjectDHP1/

I'm not blaming anyone personally- You have a thankless job. However in my opinion, the various KR threads have gone well beyond the bounds of constructive criticism + debate and instead have degenerated into bashing them at every opportunity. Sooner or later, we as customers need to accept the situation as-is. It's the moderators job (and yes, I've done this elsewhere albeit on a smaller scale) to reign this in and bring it back to a reasoned discussion. Bluntly, 20 pages of an outraged screaming echo-chamber that the model fails to represent the prototype before the last thread got locked is *not* that, and that's exactly the same way this thread is going.

Blunt answer- There are some self-styled 'experts' (trolls), who are the entirety of the problem, and the moderators are totally failing to reign in the vitriol. KR's communication is abjectly poor, and said 'experts' made suggestions, which were either brushed off or ignored totally, along with often confused and misleading communications to the general public, and a general scarcity of images of the work in progress / feedback to the community at large. As I noted in my previous post on the subject, it took ~30 pages of argument before we managed to find a set of pictures which were (probably) taken on the same day of (probably) the two different sides, so I understand & accept the difficulty here- I'm not faulting them on the model they produced, but the abject communications. Whether they've made the right choices is debatable, but at the end of the day they've put up the cash and produced a model. Some of these appear to have had issues, but the vitriol echo-chamber and poor communications from KR appears to have magnified these issues out of all proportion. At the end of the day, producing a RTR model is far more than anyone else has managed.

There is a certain subset of members here who are doing nothing more, nothing less than trolling. This totally derailed the Fell thread, and I'm afraid it's happened again here in spades. Bluntly, the whole thread needs cleaning and locking, and IMHO this reflects badly upon the site as a whole.

The motors are junk IMHO, and the whole drivetrain on these is a ticking time bomb. Known Issues: Plastic main motor shaft bearing- Continuous loaded running can and will overheat and distort this. Main drive gears split. Stupidly complex geartrain, which tends to lockup totally when a gear splits. Too light. Best thing to do with one is to drop it on a Lima chassis.

Not as bad as it looks price wise. Starting bid is probably top-end of price range, but not totally insane. It's got most of a Battlespace set in there (missile, copter + ambulance + 31) plus the other bits including 4 locos (sure, at least 2 are ropey)

You'll find there are various variations on this and the NBL & the 0-4-0 shunter chassis. These are what I know of: Large can, brass wheels & all wheel drive is earliest. Later variants have drive to one set of wheels only (bogie in the NBL case). Usually silver wheels, I presume Nickel silver. Final variants have a motor similar to the X04, shared with the Jouef Class 40. Single wheel drive on this. Silver wheels again.

FWIW, on analog, there is no tail light. That suggests something in the decoder setup to me, but I'm not going anywhere near that DCC stuff 😃

21 pages (plus the debate afterwards as to whether the consist had been reformed, for the return journey, hence reversed loco), and my point precisely stands 🤣 It looks perfectly like a reasonable enough Fell to me. Not perfect, but you forget that nothing is- Even the 00 track gauge isn't correct if you really want to be pedantic about it. However, as I know comparatively very little about the prototype, my opinion is invalid, obviously. Please go away and come back with an 'accurate' Fell, with no pre-payment, and at the same price point. I might take you more seriously then......

On the subject of symmetry, I feel that many members are conveniently forgetting that it took 30 odd pages of argument in this thread to produce 2 definitive pictures from the same day of different sides. Many (I suspect the majority of the average model buyers) will not know whether what is supplied to be accurate or not, and will just be interested in looks [moudling / painting standards] and running. My issue is not with the model delivered, but with the frankly abjectly poor communication from KR. I think we had about 2 or 3 images over the past 18 months and a couple of videos not really showing too much. Vague dates and promises add to the issue..... When you're taking payment in advance, this isn't a business model to produce satisfied customers.....

So, a while back (as you do...), I acquired a bunch of second-hand baseboards. Having stripped these, and repurposed those which I want, there are a total of 4 spare as follows: Board #1 1.2m L x 70cm W Unfortunately the worst of the lot, as it's got a turntable hole. Board #2 1.2m L x 70cm W Few minor top surface holes, good condition though. Board #3 1.2m L x 1m W Several point motor holes, nothing really major though, especially for the size. Board #4 1.2m L x 70cm W Unfortunately this one also has quite a few point motor holes. Nothing *major* but it's also not brilliant. These boards are built of 1cm MDF throughout, with a 4cm polystyrene strengthening layer and cross-battons underneath. All are heavy, but you'd likely to get them into the back of a large car. The legs are separate, and again built of 1cm MDF & are 95cm long. Unfortunately, there are only 4 legs, but these are easy enough to knock up if you can do carpentry. They have the original fittings attached, but I'm afraid that I picked and chose the best ones that fit my purpose, so this may not help much :) I should however have a bag of bolts / fitting about somewhere, which I will try and find if someone is interested, but essentially assume that new fittings and some extra legs will be needed. I'm located in Norwich. Please drop me a PM or email if interested, and we can discuss further.

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventimages.php?eventID=6622 Some iffy accident images here. Not much help, but looks like several masts got clobbered by intermodal containers.

Usual problem with Mainline Class 45s is that the plastic (overcomplicated) geartrain disintegrates, with one or more of the final drive gears inside the bogie splitting. Plastic bearings for the motor commutator too, which adds to the fun if it's run for extended periods and gets warm. Biggest problem with the Jouef class 40 on the other hand is the absolutely massive nose swing. Running isn't too bad, but like anything can do with more pickups...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/triangbuyer This chap does 3D printed Triang bits. Not specifically got your steps listed, but I suspect he'd probably be quite happy to do some for you. (Satisified purchaser of some slightly modified cowcatchers to remove the coupling hole)

That's about right, but very much subject to fudge factor. I think ~11.5ft either way, but the walls aren't 100% straight and my tape is only 2m. 11ft was the reasonable conservative estimate. 00- I've got 25 years worth of collection here. Over 40 Lima Class 47s (first model I ever bought as a child- 47 369 in two-tone green.......), and about 70 other assorted locos, HST sets, Blue-Grey Pullman etc. etc. No way I'm changing scale now, even though I sometimes regret this. If N had been available in the same way it is now when I started, perhaps things would have been different.

Freight to Wadebridge via the branch lasted until the 2nd September 1978 in real life. The Cornwall Railway Society website photos ( http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/bodmin-to-padstow.html ) shows that there was certianly a degree of van etc. traffic up to this point. Also, there were the two rail connected businesses between Bodmin Road and Bodmin general at the premises that Fitzgerald Lighting now occupies. I don't have any immediate data on exactly when these stopped traffic by rail, but at a guess that would probably be early 70s at some point. Fitzgerald Lighting also ran VGA trains in the preservation era for a couple of short stints https://bodmin-heritage-diesels.co.uk/home1/Freight.html Either way, I suspect that the exchange sidings saw more use than you seem to think.

Again, thanks for the replies Some thoughts: The 'original' from Chris M seems to have made many of the same compromises / choices I've done in putting together this plan, with the station itself wrapped around one corner, and the sidings and bits on the straight- Seeing a complete trackplan would be highly interesting to compare and contrast. Whether this is a good thing is debatable, but it at least shows the same basic conclusions (and inexperience?) coming out of the design process.... It omits the mainline dock siding entirely, and drops the branch exchange sidings to a single plus loop / headshunt, both of which I'll probably have to seriously consider when the boards are in place and I can actually place stock on the thing. The new plan from Chris M is also interesting, but has the same omission of the mainline dock siding, slip etc. entirely. I think this shows that in the space available, this *probably* isn't achievable without the current set of nasty compromises. As a FWIW, the orientation was originally thought of with the mainline dock in mind- The alcove created by the chimney breast means there's just that little bit more space to play with. Interestingly, I can't make the new plan fit though in X-TrackCAD at the minute, which doesn't help. Trying to do flexi track in this program is terrible, and I'm probably going to end up doing the whole thing by hand on the baseboards in the end.... The photos are also interesting, but I know Bodmin well enough. (and probably have far too many of my own) I grew up near Callington, and still have family in the vicinity. Thanks- That shows that when the tracks are on the boards, the curves are probably sortable. I'm definitely not intending to print to size and follow the plan exactly, it's somewhat more of a design aid than anything else, and figuring out whether more experienced heads can pick holes in the numerous fudges I've made. The XTC file is hosted on my own server I've been building this line virtually for 20 years.... http://www.bvecornwall.co.uk (I've also somehow ended up as the main maintainer / developer for OpenBVE, but that's another story entirely)

Many thanks, you're all giving me plenty of food for thought here. At the end of the day, I think I'm going to have to get the boards physically up and try to scale, rather than on the PC to see how much movement there is. Some responses to points from my end: Anti-clockwise movement: Dunno. I deliberately tried to keep this area clear of any major pointwork etc. as the door is here, and I'd quite like to make this section liftable / removable. The kink: Yeah, it's not brilliant, it was an attempt to try and get that little bit more space for the branch track, whilst at the same time avoiding embedding the station building / signalbox in the chimney breast. Curves: Although it doesn't seem to look it, the station mainlines are marginally larger than 2nd radius, although definitely ought to go bigger if possible. Missing slip: Yeah, it just got too cramped down there unfortunately... In my defense, according to the Pryer diagrams volume I've got here, it was OOU 27-03-1968, and the crossover itself was OOU 21-02-1969. As such, this gave me (un)reasonable justification to shift it further down the line a little as plain pointwork, assuming continued branch operations required some sort of occasional connection to the down main. I can (barely) make it work in place of the current arrangement, which would also allow the down platform to be extended a little and be prototypically stupidly narrow to boot, but this makes the radii problem worse. Water crane: I don't have an exact removal date for this, but I believe it to have been removed by the mid 70s, so MIA for about half my intended timeperiod. Other thoughts: I'm somewhat tempted to make the branch rise relative to the mainline, and essentially try to build a short section of branch *above* the mainlines on the left (along with pair of terminating sidings), before diving down to join the yard section at the top. If done right, this might allow for a decent bunch of trees and the Fowey viaduct to act as a scenic break for the mainline end of the station, but on the flip side, I don't much like the required rise in the space available. I've attached a slightly modified version of the trackplan, with minimum radius set to 450mm and the slip swapped in for perusal. The X-Track CAD file is here, as the forum won't allow it to be attached: http://vps.bvecornwall.co.uk/stuff/BodminV3.xtc

So, I've somewhat lucked into a full room's worth of second hand baseboards. This means that something I've been doodling for (many, many) years is finally going to come to fruition. I've worked up the attached trackplan based upon Bodmin Road, which I feel is reasonably production ready (!), and is the result of many itinerations of doodling. It's designed to run ~5-6 coach trains as a tailchaser, and to fit these into the station, albeit with a little overhang. Points are all intended to be medium radius, exept for three points in the sidings. (1. Splitting the two main sidings 2. Point to branch dock siding 3. Point to mainline dock siding) Unfortunately, the goods shed is kinda missing as I can't really shunt into the cattle dock through it and space is a little squeezed there....... Please largely ignore the left-hand side and the top (I was meddling with trying to get General in the center somewhere, but it simply doesn't fit); These will be tweaked to provide probably 3 loops either way, plus probably a siding or two for terminators. The baseboard dimensions can be essentially ignored too, but are a reasonable guide to what I'm thinking / fitting. For my purposes, I'm assuming that the Bodmin branch (and probably hence the Padstow / Wadebridge connection) remained open to passenger traffic, with I suppose the thing intended to broadly represent something anywhere between c. 1965 to 1990.