Richard Hall

Oooh, a gradient change midway, even better. No problem with my planned open frame baseboards, but can I ask where exactly the sign used to be located? I can't spot it on the few photos I have looked at. It occurs to me that I will have to model the gradient whether I like it or not, as the goods siding was on the level and the divergence in trackbed heights is very obvious. Richard

My obsession is running riot. Have been looking at photos of the station house (which seems to have been the least photographed structure on the entire WR) and realised it is built on sloping ground. Now wondering whether to build the entire layout on a 1 in 75 slope to get all the angles right.

Peaks appeared in significant numbers from 28/6/61: Stobs lost its goods facilities on 3/7/61. Seldom can any model railway have pinned itself down to such a short timeframe.

I believe the Peaks didn't really start appearing until 1962, so a bit out of period, but I'm happy to be corrected on that. Looks like I might not have to model that crossover, I found a photo from 1961 and it had clearly been removed by then. I spent a happy evening going through the 1953 WTT and trying to get a feel for traffic patterns. Also poring over photos of the station buildings and thinking about constructional methods. I think I need to be realistic about timeframe on this one: I've been planning it for more than thirty years, so I shouldn't be too worried if it takes me five years to build. Richard

With a rather significant WR anniversary fast approaching I really need to get off my fat behind and actually start building the layout I have been planning for ages. To cut a very long story short I've gone for Stobs in late spring 1961 (just before it lost its goods facilties), N gauge in a space 10' x 5' which I think is just about enough. I'm planning a U-shaped "bent dogbone" with the scenic area around 8' x 2'6" (nice and deep) with storage loops at each end. This means that my trains can go from one place to another and return some time later, rather than just going round in circles. Stobs couldn't be much simpler as stations go - a single goods siding on the Down side and a trailing crossover opposite the signalbox of whose purpose I have no idea. The only uses I can think of are rescuing trains which have got into trouble on the climb out of Hawick, or releasing banking engines used to give heavy troop trains an initial shove out of Stobs Camp sidings. So I will model the crossover but non-working as I can't imagine ever needing to use it. The main problem is the usual WR one - no useful scenic breaks. At the south end there is a deep cutting and lots of trees which should be enough to hide the entrance to the loops, but to the north of Barns Viaduct is a long embankment which is really unhelpful. I'll have to fudge it, with sharply rising ground to a typical WR sheep bridge providing the necessary scenic break, helped by a few more trees. I think it's doable but the first stage will be to knock up a quarter-scale model out of card and polystyrene and see how it looks. This layout is going to be all about operation, presenting a representative selection of WR trains in a sequence which bears at least some resemblance to the working timetable. I'll have eight loops to play with, the shortest of which will handle 10 coaches or 30 wagons with room to spare. Keeping one loop free I need to come up with seven classic WR formations. Suggestions welcome, but my thinking at the moment is as follows: 1. Waverley / Leeds-Edinburgh express (8-9 coaches) 2. Edinburgh-Carlisle semi-fast (4-5 coaches and a varying number of vans) 3. Carlisle-Hawick stopper (2-3 coaches) 4. Class C fast freight (30 wagons inc fish and perishables vans) 5. Class E freight (30 wagons) 6. Carlisle-Hawick pick-up goods 7. The tricky one. Parcels, or night sleeper? If I make the two short trains share a single loop I could have both... Locomotives - I gave some serious thought to the "death steam" era around 1965, but as DJM have shelved their Clayton for now I've gone for that short but glorious period when Pacifics and V2s were being cascaded down from ECML services and could turn up on pretty much any working. There are a fair few gaps in the RTR offerings - K3, D49 and J36 are the obvious ones - but A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, V2, J39, Standard 4MT, diesel classes 26 and 40, and the odd Britannia and Black Five should cover most workings for now. Does anyone have scale drawings for any of the station buildings? Richard

Tempting. Very, very tempting. https://www.pathfindertours.co.uk/index.php/event-list.html?day=20190105

I have acquired some old railway magazines, leafing through Railway Magazine July 1969 and what do I find? A photo feature on the end of the Millerhill - Hawick freight service with four pictures, none of which I have seen before, including D368 shunting Galashiels lyes on 10/1/69 which must have been a nail-biting time for all concerned. Do copyright laws allow me to scan it and put it up here?

You would have thought the N Gauge Society would have something to say on the subject, but I just had a look at their website and there is no mention of standards, beyond them saying that 2FS is 9.5mm gauge (sic) and therefore not N Gauge. Somehow I don't think that specifying the distance between running rails is quite enough on its own to constitute a standard. (And what about Brunel's Broad Gauge in 1:148 - is that N Gauge or not?) Richard

The suggestion of a new standard was a bit tongue in cheek. We arguably have more than enough standards already for very small trains. NEM, NMRA, 2FS, FS160, N2 (8.8mm gauge with fine flangeways, to avoid the need to adjust back to backs on RTR N gauge), and then there's commercial N gauge running NMRA profile wheels set to NEM back to back on track that makes Triang Super Four look finescale. The main thing is to pick a standard that works for you personally and apply it consistently. I'm getting good results so far with NMRA but it's early days.

Perhaps we need a new standard. There seem to be a few of us working to something in between commercial N gauge and 2FS. We could call it "Not Quite 2mm" or NQ2 for short. I too have been working on hand-built N gauge track, trying to apply NMRA standards (around 0.75mm flangeways and check rails) to British models. The result is this B6 turnout, constructed with a mixture of PCB sleepers with 10 thou chairplates salvaged from various etch offcuts, and 30 thou styrene sleepers with cut down Finetrax chairs. I made my own roller gauges out of washers and shims, and the whole thing comes out at a pretty consistent 9.0mm gauge after a little bit of tweaking. It even has a hidden tiebar which is a first for me. I'm happy enough with it that I will build another one.

Interesting topic which ties in with something I am fiddling around with at the moment, trying to apply the NMRA wheel and track standards (S3.2 and S4.2) to British N gauge. The NMRA standard is much tighter than the European NEM, around half way between commercial N gauge and 2FS. Gauge 9mm, check rail clearances 0.75mm, back to back 7.65mm (all +/- a tiny bit) with a maximum flange width of 0.5mm. Not as nice to look at as 2FS but a big improvement on commercial N, or even Finetrax with its NEM-compliant 1mm check rail gaps. Helpfully most of the more recent N gauge models have wheel profiles closer to NMRA than the shockingly bad NEM standard. I had to turn down the tender wheel backs on a Farish J39 as the flanges were a bit wide, but that is the only non-compliant wheel profile I have found so far. Back to backs on N gauge models out of the box seem to vary around +/- 0.1mm from the NEM standard of 7.4mm so absolutely everything needs regauging, which on a Dapol B1 required more bravery than I thought I had. I don't think the end product looks too shabby. My current layout is Finetrax but with soldered crossings rather than the supplied cast ones. As a first step I have closed up the clearances with Microstrip and it all seems to work fine, smoother running than previously. Next step is to build a soldered construction B6 turnout. I assembled a couple of roller gauges from washers and shims, just need crossing nose gauges and I can get going. As regards flatbottom Code 40, one possibility might be to use thin ply sleepers and cyano adhesive, with just a few strategically placed soldered sleepers for strength. I built a small amount of track that way a long time ago and from what I can remember it came out pretty strong and was quick to make. That broad, flat rail base is ideal for glueing to things, unlike bullhead. Milling ply sleepers to a concrete sleeper profile might be a bit tedious though. You could shave the chairs off Easitrac sleeper mouldings but I have no idea how well they would take cyano. Richard

Heath Robinson eat your heart out. Here is my servo-operated uncoupler installed on the coarse-scale testbed for my coupler design. Heavy brass flap hinge with a 10 x 10 x 5 N52 Neodymium magnet glued to it, installed to fall away from the track under its own weight and lifted up by the servo arm as required. I could just mount the magnet direct on the servo arm, but the flap hinge has two advantages. Firstly, if the servo fails I can unplug it and operate the uncoupler manually. Secondly, if the servo does what they do occasionally and goes to full travel at max speed with no warning it won't try to punch a hole in the trackbed. The top of the magnet is about 6mm below rail height so it will be completely invisible and can be retrofitted to existing layouts without digging holes in the ballast. (The large hole in the baseboard here is the legacy of a previous experiment with Chinese electromagnets.) Operation is via a microswitch nailed to the controller, obviously if you have lots of uncouplers you will be looking at a different switching arrangement. The control board is from Heathcote Electronics and does the job. Main thing is that it works, so I can now get on with the rest of my life. Down: Up: Not a pretty sight... Richard

I am deep into uncoupling magnets at the moment, trying to develop a workable solution for my own coupler design which has much the same uncoupling requirement as the DG coupler. I played around with electromagnets of various kinds, then tried a solenoid lifting a magnet up under the track (which caused a minor earthquake every time it was actuated, as the armature banged against its end stop). I was very wary of servos as they are controlled by electronics which is like witchcraft as far as I am concerned. I then found a servo controller from Heathcote Electronics which is easy to set up (according to the instructions) and gives two position control with nothing more complex than an on-off switch. My plan is to mount a permanent magnet onto a brass flap hinge, arranged so that it drops down from the baseboard under its own weight. The servo will be used to raise the hinge flap and the magnet with it. I will post photos if this contraption works. Main advantage for me is that it can be retrofitted to an existing layout without digging holes in the track: the magnets I am using will operate happily with half an inch of baseboard, trackbed and sleeper base between magnet and rail tops. So I just need to mill out a recess in the underside of the board big enough to clear the magnet.

I finally did something with one of the square Minibea motors, stuffed it into a Farish J39 tender drive unit. This particular tender drive has never worked especially well - all those badly moulded gears on sloppy bearings trying to fight each other - and this is its fourth motor. I'm actually impressed. It is a lovely sweet, smooth, controllable motor, and almost has enough low speed torque to overcome the geartrain issues. Much better than the Mashima 1015 that used to be in it. Almost but not quite, it still hesitates at crawling speeds. But I think I will order a few more while they are still around, that square shape is ideally suited to tender mounting. Richard

That's why I thought it was more likely 5 pole but you're right, it's 6. I suppose it depends how it is wound - if it is in effect two 3 pole motors 180 degrees apart on the same armature it could be rather nice. I've never heard of such a thing, but I am sure someone more knowledgable will be along shortly to explain. Richard

Another little Chinese motor to play with. It is claimed to be 6-pole but I would guess 5 is more likely, 9 volt rated and relatively slow-running by the standards of these things. 10mm square by 15 long, 1mm shaft and £6.95 for five, post free. I'm in. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mini-Minebea-Square-Motor-DC6V-9V-7-2V-1700RPM-10-10mm-6-pole-Rotor-Large-Torque-/282607882699 Richard

Thanks very much everyone who replied to my post about solder cream / paste, several useful suggestions there for me to try. I already tried the Easi Print paste, it's OK but not nearly as nice to use as the Loctite/Multicore. Richard

The supply of ultra cheap micro motors from China seems to have dried up, but here's something else. Huge quantity of M1.0 - M1.6 metric screws and nuts for under a fiver. They are probably made of cheese but I've ordered three boxes anyway. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/600-x-12-Dimension-Small-Steel-Screws-Nuts-Bolts-M1-M1-2-M1-4-M1-6-Assorted-Box/311959818266 Richard

What solder cream / paste do people recommend for small components? I bought some solder cream (Loctite / Multicore) to build an etched kit last year, it cost £30 for a 20g syringe which was horribly expensive but it worked beautifully with my resistance soldering unit. Unfortunately it seems to have dried out and no longer flows from the syringe which is apparently a common problem with this stuff. You are supposed to keep it in the fridge, and I didn't know that. I tried some cheap solder paste from Ebay and it wasn't nearly as good. I'm now getting ready to take the plunge in 2mm with a couple of wagon chassis kits. Any suggestions before I splash out another £30? Richard

Yes, it is Finetrax and looks rather pretty. This is my Borders inspired layout "Longframlington". At the risk of going off topic here's another view, with 46474 (allocated to North Blyth for a few months in 1960/61) on the daily goods from Morpeth.

Taking shape on my virtual workbench, a set of etched components for a North British 3500 gallon tender. This started out with me reviving my coupler design project that stalled a couple of years ago: having got to grips with the design software (DraftSight) I thought I would try something slightly more complex and it sort of ran away with me. It is designed to take a small motor and shaft drive, hence the large semicircles at the end of the bodysides, but has an alternative top with correctly shaped coal space for those who prefer to put the motor where God intended. Needs a bit more work, all the half etches doing and then the components arranged into a fret with tabs. If it works I'll make it available to others and then start on a loco to go with it, either a J35 or J37 (or both!) Meanwhile if anyone can see any obvious snags with what I have done so far, please feel free to point them out before I ruin a perfectly innocent sheet of brass. Richard

Not quite a Waverley Route loco, but Canal's N15s probably handled more WR freight traffic than any St Margarets V2. 69155 started life as a plastic-bodied Farish GP tank from a starter train set and I built it just for fun really as I have absolutely no use for an N15. It is wrong in every single dimension, partly because of the compromises involved in using a bad RTR model as a base, and partly because I was working from a very inaccurate drawing and didn't look at enough photographs. Still needs a couple of details to finish it off and it is a bit crude by modern RTR standards, but there can't be many N gauge N15s around.

Lovely old document, a real piece of history and thank you for sharing it. Interesting to see the Hawick - Whitrope bankers also did station pilot duties, I believe this arrangement continued into BR days, with a brace of Standard 2MTs replacing the J36s which had done the job for so long. Two more bankers based at Riccarton for the long slog north from Newcastleton, although I suspect these were made redundant earlier than the Hawick ones. The northbound climb wasn't so tough and most freights got a run at the bank, unlike Hawick where they were into a 1 in 75 climb from a standing start. The WR really was a horribly difficult and expensive railway to operate. Richard

I bought that LP from the National Railway Museum shop, I would have been about twelve years old. I still have it. Richard

Possibly the use of bankers declined as more powerful locos became available. At the start of the 1950s most freights were worked by K3s: ten years on they had been largely displaced by V2s and Pacifics of all types. That photo of the 2MT is just beautiful. Richard