Derekstuart

@martin_wynne I've not posted on Templot for a while but I've been reading it and the system you're developing is incredible. @PjKing1 hello Paul. It appears I've hijacked your thread. Sorry about that. Consider it un-hijacked.

The problem is always threading those damned chairs onto the rail. Yes, I know about filing it to a point, using washing up liquid etc, but even then I find around 1/4 of them break. One thing I do like about those chairs- and I know Martin will disagree- is the inclined rail. personally I think it does make a difference, perhaps not to everyone but IMO once you know it should be at 1:20 inclined, vertical never looks right after that. PS re your comment of Templot above- if I can help at all, please let me know. I've been lucky enough to have a lot of help and whilst far from an expert, providing the real World design is clear enough then recreating it in plan is quite easy. Speaking personally, I think the biggest hurdle is trying to understand the prototype and once you can do that, recreating it in Templot is a matter of a few buttons for all but the most complex features. BTW sorry to Paul for hijacking his thread.

@lezz01 many thanks for the info. I have only really worked with Exactoscale on ply, though in the past I have some limited etched timbers with soldered rail, as you've just described. As mentioned to Paul earlier, I am trying to decide on all ply- or plastic timbers for pointwork and using flexi for the plain track- like you I'm conscious that I'm not getting any younger as well. Derek

Thank you Martin. You're a good bloke. I'm afraid I did leave Templot forum under a grey cloud one day- I was having a difficult time and argued about something or other I cannot even remember. If you would overlook that and accept my apologies I'd gladly take up your offer. Thanks.

@lezz01 I see you're using ply and rivet. Have you tried other methods and if so how do they compare? There are so many people out there arguing one type over another but very few who have tried more than one method and thus can't really talk about comparisons. Obviously you have to have the punch, which I think is getting harder to find. I'm loading up your thread at the moment, but it's slow to load the graphics.

I'm still stuck with 'the' Whitby tandem. X+Y means A is one timber short, B is one timber too long. If I make it X+Z then A is too short and B is too long... .I've even asked permanent way blokes if they can work this out and still no one can. It's a mathematical riddle. I know it's track version of rivet counting- but it's only this one bit that's got to be 'just right'.

@PjKing1you won't fail. Your work just gets better and better. Your scenery and weathering was always good and it seems your technical skills have caught up. In the same time I've done SFA. No Kings Cross. It's too big and with no starting point. Whitby can at least be built in stages- station, stable etc and each be a layout in its own right. Though this time I'm going to keep it simple. No S4, just standard P4, no clever tricks that I was trying just the tried and tested systems. Paul, what do you think to plastic Vs wooden sleepers/ timbers? I am really against mixing the two. But if I can use plastic based lengths rather than individual sleepers and chairs, then it makes it much more likely I'll DO something.

Good God- bits keep arriving in the post? That's well and truly broken then. Awkward, isn't it? I stood on a dog biscuit of all things, which caused my toe to fold in such a way nature never intended and crack... it's not so funny, is it... well not when it happens to you. BTW Paul- those checkrail chairs- are you back to standard 00? If so then you might want to look at those chairs as they're 0.8mm gap rather than 1.0mm required for 00. Derek

Hello Lez Like Paul, I'm more than happy to help you with Templot. I learned the easy way by clicking this, that and the other and seeing what it does. But there is a more structured way and that is to read the various tutorials at templot.com; there is no definitive manual and there never could be as the range of parameters is just too vast. What do you already know about turnouts, if anything? Do you understand how the real thing is created- this is a big help when coming to understand how to make them on Templot. Happy to help talk you through anything. I admit I'm a bit rusty, but I'd describe myself as a fairly advanced Templot user- but that is only after a lot of practice and a lot of advice from Martin Wynne and others. However even a beginner can make surprisingly complicated works in Templot but I would urge you to just set aside one or two hours and experiment- see what each function does and if it goes wrong then re-start, no one dies, no trains crash. If you do that you'll learn very quickly. @PjKing1 good to see you back. What gauge are you using this week? Glad to see you've made that crossover a little curved this time. It will surprise you not to learn that in the time you've built this latest version I've built SFA. Derek

I remember them being branded as T&W, but agree they were often seen elsewhere- I've had them several times on the Esk Valley and once from York to Middlesborough via Northallerton (What fun). So whether intended or not, they did get used by whomever and wherever needed.

Are you all sure this is the same tooling? It doesn't appear to me to be the same.

With all respect, if you were born several decades earlier you might well have made the same comment about electric motors in model trains. "No one, lad, is ever going to give up their clockwork trains for those new fangled motor things. There can't be more than a dozen using motors now- a waste of time." (the same comparison can be used for any new technology)

Many thanks @EddieB and @5944 After looking through the above links and seeing the references, it seems I've inherited at least one model of that class. I've never really taken much of an interest in German (or any non-British) railway before, but I think it's time I had a closer look at my Dad's collection. There are rooms stacked with stuff (literally). Thanks again.

Hello all I have a question about a German locomotive and I know very little indeed about Continental stuff, despite inheriting my late Dad's rather large collection. I was watching 'Colditz' (the 1970s series) and the POWs make their escape by train pulled by a small-ish tank locomotive, numbered 92 011. It didn't take long to find this is just called a 'series 92'- at least, one site called it that. NB it seems that a series 92 can also apply to a tender locomotive- presumably they are related in design. A few seconds of it can be seen here Anyway, my questions are A) am I correct ^^^^ and B) is this locomotive still extant? being filmed in 1972-1974 and may well have been filmed in or around Rottweil (certainly it appears the exterior of the station was the genuine Rottwei). I'm guessing the filming date would be late 1972 to early 1973. I have no idea what the status of steam was in Germany then- in UK nothing was on the main line. In Germany this could have been still in service, or withdrawn except for this special or in preservation. Apologies but I lack the knowledge of this loco to interrogate search engines. TIA Derek

Hello Evertrainz Tell me, is that Wolverton? The curves lok just right, as does the platform and the signal repeater... but if so then the old Wolverton yard must have remained longer than I thought (IF it's Wolverton, the wagons are on what used to be a terminus platform for the Newport Pagnell branch). Thanks Derek

Oddly, the first and second didn't, but the catering car (buffet/ kitchen/ restaurant?) did and also, IIRC, the TGS had them.

There's not much on here that really makes me laugh, but that did. In fact, I doubt I'll ever get my tea out of every nook and crevice on my keyboard. Perhaps instead of worrying about what motorised vehicles to put on the road, the OP should consider how many cats he can put on his layout.

Well if that's the case then perhaps you might want to email Studio Canal and tell them there's no need to register a trademark. Unfortunately, this is what I mean by most people here commenting on a subject they know little or nothing about. The copyright is for the film and not for individual items in it. I am not going to say for certain that your argument would be dismissed in Court as, like others here, I am not qualified to state that. What I am suggesting is that it is far, far from certain that reliance on copyright alone would be enough and this is, I would argue, evidenced by A) SCL not launching legal action already B) SCL registering a trade mark. See above. The name 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' has been used in many examples, one that I recall being a rather disparaging newspaper article about modern day rail services. In fact, that's a fairly regular usage of the term. My final word on this as life is too short: I am really not trying to tell you that your argument wouldn't work, for I am just not qualified to state that any more than you are qualified to say it will. What I am saying is that the arguments people are putting forward with absolute certainty would not be certain if they were to present it to Court- if they were then this matter would have been resolved by now and this thread wouldn't be on page 23.

On this date, Stonecoldsmil1882 went into an empty room and managed to start an argument with someone. I thought *I* needed to relax more.

Is this not the same problem as was found 50 years ago with roof thatchers? As a result of so many people being unable to find anyone to re-thatch their roof (and by virtue of the fact they are thatched, likely now listed and difficult to change to iron (several former thatched cottages near me were converted to corrugated iron during WW2/post era- other materials available)) the remaining thatchers were able to command very high wages- which in turn meant that people started turning to the trade, by which time in late 90s it was estimated that there were 150% of the ideal number of thatchers chasing the available work. Don't quote me on exact numbers or dates, please. But I'm pretty sure something like that happened. I can see something similar happening in all branches of engineering soon- I'm seeing it already in commercial vehicles, there just aren't new people coming in who want to get their hands dirty as opposed to becoming overnight sensations as celebrity media influencers... (they'll learn)

My word there are a lot of people here commenting on a subject with absolute certainty and authority and are instead writing what they assume should be the case, rather than what actually is. Studiocanal Films Ltd actually applied to register the trademark 'THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT' 14th January 2022. It is currently in the examination process, which means it has not been granted and- if there are no objections- then it will be granted probably July or August of this year. However, I expect Hornby's lawyers will object on the basis that it has fallen into general use already and as such there *may* be grounds for it to be declared inadmissable. This applies to generic or well used terms that are already in everyday use- will those objections work? I have no idea- I am not a IP lawyer and I suspect from what I've read no one else here is either. For reference the application can be found here: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003743445 If the application fails then the applicant *may* have a basis for claiming 'passing off' of an UN registered trade mark. But the bench mark for that is very, very high indeed and I would not bet money on it. I would put a punt on their class 9 application receiving objections. What is going to prove to be interesting is if Hornby can release their model before SCL have their application accepted (assuming they do). Hornby *may* well then have established a precedent and as such they can then release further models based on their own 'inspired by' range. (SMALL PRINT: no side is taken, no moral opinion is implied nor should be inferred. I have no connection to any interested parties. I am not an IP lawyer. Readers are advised to check with the IPO before acting upon, believing/ disbelieving this post. All content within this post remains the copyright of me, though certain non-exclusive rights to it are awarded to the operators of RMWeb.co.uk. Copyright will remain until 50 years after my death at which time it becomes public domain. UK rules allow for small portions of this post to be replicated without breach of copyright for education, explanation or critical analysis- for example if you re-post the above paragraph alone then you are breaching copyright. If you post the above paragraph and write 'this is rubbish in my opinion' then you are not in breach of copyright, but just plain and simply wrong. HTH)

I've said it before and I'll say it again (esp. re the 19/1/22 video) you can tell this layout has been designed and built by a train driver. It has that 'feel' of a real railway- something that many layouts just don't seem to manage. Is the track plan based on or inspired by any real locations, or is entirely based on your own design, Russ? So many people have designed layouts how they think it would be built in real life, when of course the plan evolves over time and often looks very different to what you would expect. Excellent thread. Derek

Can I suggest that compression isn't absolute. That is some things can be compressed a bit more than others. For example, I find these grand mainline termini modelled with 4 or more platforms but that aren't long enough to take even a 3 car DMU just look plain wrong. To the other end of the scale, my local main line station has 1/4 mile from the start of the turnouts to the start of the platform ramp, so about 16ft in 00- that could easily be reduced to 5-6 ft without looking out of place, though compressed to 18in or less, as is common, to me looks wrong. Personally I don't really like compression, preferring to design something accurate for the space available- this means I've scaled back my plan to build a large station and just concentrating on a part of it. But that's more because I'm trying to build a historic replica; if I were building a made up location I'd use some compression as above. Good luck.

Why are you being sarcastic like that? There's just no need for it. No need at all. I was making the same point as I have seen you and other kit builders make before that they're one-man bands, don't have the back up and support for an 'Amazon-like' delivery service that more and more people are growing to expect. I have no idea what your costs and margins are and nor should I, but speaking personally I think that many of the support services and parts, including kits, are very cheap for the work that goes into designing them, producing and then despatching them. I accept most people just want as much as they can as cheap as they can; that's fine, but they mustn't then complain when the vendor doesn't have the Amazon-like support facilities to despatch it instantly, or run a sophisticated web ordering facility. There, I hope that explains it. I'm used to you showing disdain for others, but seldom to one who would prefer to see you make more, not less, money per sale.

Hello Mick Sorry it's a bit late for a reply. I was just using that as an example- you could apply the same principle to anything- car repairs, restaurants, driving instructors... The point is if I want X etched component and I want to have 'Amazon-like' delivery, knowing that I can order simply and receive the order on an agreed date then the vendor will have to charge more money in order to accommodate the extra help needed. Sorry if I've not understood your point fully. Derek