rue_d_etropal

Jack Nelson was a pioneeer of modern model railway modelling. He used the Z dimensuion, when most others tended to have 'flat' layouts with the odd hill. He also modelled HO, although some of his perspective dioramas are to other scales at front. He had advantage as LNWR locos were mostly inside cylinders , but apart from his smaller building proects he did not get into print after 1940s.I have copies of MRN fom just post war with his articles about his LNWR HO layout. Just had first exhition with my mini layout,and it was extremely well received. One invite for Dukinfield in April. I have the second moduke almost finished. It had been hoped to connect it to firs , but I got some calcuations wrong and I decided it would be beter on its own , and it is now in a dffernt time period, so will need asome more trains to run. I wonderd how to display the modules, and had originally planned tomake it like you were looking over a all, then I realised it was about size of a picture frame , so have created a wall using lining paper, with what looks like a pictur hanging on t. still need to do some tweeks based on first exhibition, such as a magnetic board I can 'hang' with dettails and one for exhbitions it has been at.

Go up slightly in scale to 1/100 scale and you then have all the 15mm wargaming buildings and accessories(most a lot cheaper than plastic kits). It is also easier to fit motor/chassis in locos.

I have been using graphite for many years, with no problems. First heard about it from Gn15 forum theGnatterbox, and many narrow gauge modellers used it. It does make track slippery, so could be a problem for some , but for the short trains I run it is fine. In fact by being slippery, trains just slide over some small problem areas , especially useful for slow running. Traditional track cleaners/rubbers are abrasive and scratch the rail, so dirt can bed in easier. I have found best way is to deliberately roughen top of rail by using a track rubber, then apply graphite. I tend to use a cheap carpenters pencil. Probably not very pure, but it still works. One thing you learn from running some models is that when you cut the power, train does not stop immediately, so you learn how to control (drive?) it so it stops where you want. Adds a bit more fun to running trains as well.

interesting. Odd they have not done a London Country version, as that was more common than the Greenline version. Pity British manufacturers do not do online catalogues like this, although I think Oxford might have something online,talking of which pity Oxford don't do their British models in HO as well. Interest in Britain might not be that much, but I am sure they would sell well overseas, and of course there would still be some interest in Britain.

hopefully the drawngs were based on those ones preserved, given that it was a Moseley Trust publication. I only spotted one difference with the diesel, and the steamer looked OK, and also had the drawings inanother magazine.

this railway has always fascinated me, but finding scale drwings is difficult. I got PPaul Webb's book(Moseley Trust) for Christmas and was pleasantly surprised to find it had drawings. After comparing with photos I noticed some small differences, but they were good enough as a starting point. Concentrated on the later locos and stock, and just completed my designs(12 different scales!) for the steam and diesel Hudswell Clarke locos and the narrow gauge locos and some rolling stock. I might have a look at te others at some time, but there sems to be even less info about them, apart from a handful of photos. http://www.rue-d-etropal.com/3D-printing/3d_printed_Irish-5ft-3in-gauge-trains1.htm http://www.rue-d-etropal.com/3D-printing/3d_printed-irish-narrow-gauge.htm Now I may have to actually build a model. If I was having bothbroad and narrow gauges, I would probably go for 1/35 scale, using 45mm and 16.5mm gauges. The 16.5mm is a bit wide, but not too much. Alternatively 1/50th scale using 32mm and 12mm or 10.5mm gauges.

The difficulty with OO9 and HOe is that both are over gauge for 600mm gauge.With OO9 it is not as obvious, but for HO scale it is nearer to 750mm gauge. For my 3D printed models I do both 1/76 and 1/87 scale but recommend using 6.5mm for HO, as this is becoming easier and cheaper to get hold of, and the Busch HOf models coud be used as well. The next problem is then finding suitable chassis for some smaller locos.

Once painted and weathered they won't be so obvious. They look like the Plastruct/Slaters ones you have used. They are not quite the typicall'Spanish pantile' I have on my house, but I think I have sen moden versions with a side lip to link tiles together. One of the problems with laser cutting is that tiles look too flat. The Redutex ones do look good. I had a close look at O scale ones recently, but they stilldid not look quite right for some tiles. Had not looked closely at the Jouef model . Interesting. It would be nice to have some detailed(ie drawings) showing shape of different tiles, as I have done some for 3D printing.

did not realise there was code 55, tend to associate it with N gauge , but whilst searching for some even smaller items I came across the T gauge website and they sell code 40 rail. Not that I would(or could) use either, but the finer rails might be ideal for ether narrow gauge or 3rd/4th rail. When I was running shop, I used to get quite a bit of steel rail track in second hand and also stocked cheap flexi track as there were enough people who were happy with it to build larger layouts as it was cheap and otherwise they would not be ale to expand their layouts. Many use older cheap locos and stock for same reason( I do have some myself). Oddly our club layout(well we are custodians of it) was built in the 80s, featured in RM at the time, uses handbuilt fine scale track and we can run virtually anything. It is only obvious when looking closely that there are no chairs fitted, and some wheels happily run on sleepers!! But if anyone messes with the points in station nothing runs properly and they will have to make themselves scarce!.

station bulding looks good. Just need to find reaso for the bigger building. Also not sure about the tiles. Although the round 'pantile' ones are common in the area, the ones I have seen on local station buildings are the flatter ones. I personally prefer the round ones, but I do wonder why the flatter ones were used. Possibly the way they are fitted is more secure as I have been told the round ones can slip over time. Slate tile roofs can also be found in the area, but I think mainly churches, possibly linked to the Norman influence at the time of the Cathars.

yes it is just opinion. Anyone can pursue the hobby the way they want, but some feel they have to push the hobby in certain directions and then look down on those who don't follow them.

Also different names depending on country. Have seen English bond called Engineering bond. As I am living in Accrington(NORI brick country), I see quite a few less common bonds. Variations on Garden Wall Bond, with different number of rows of stretcher bond. Many USA/Canadian buildings use Colonial bond which is a 7 row repeat. Round here both 6(normal) and 5 row repeats are used. Sometimes the term French bond is used. Stretcher bond(modern style) was first used round here about 1904(date is on one row of houses), but for anything other than houses stretcher bond only came in much later. Far too model kits use stretcher bond, and even new ones. Yet some old Triang buildings(1960s) use Flemish bond, when I would have expected stretcher bond. Overall I prefer to see something that feels right. I also prefer 3d not printed, except for purely background. Having said that one feature of French buildings I like is the 'smooth' cement rendering, but you have to be careful with variety of roof tiles. What I think of as a pantile is not same everywhere. I am sometimes not certain about French brickwork in drawings as it is often drawn as stretcher bond. That might be correct, but I am not certain, unless I see a photo of building. Often seen French models using what is in effect 4mm scale brickwork in places, and having to adjust number of rows.

Far too much talk about track specifics. The important fact is that the gauge is near enough correct, and it is easier for someone to start in British HO using track such as Peco HO/OO. Anyone wanting even finer track, building their own track and models to run on it is far more likely to go for EM or P4, as there are so many accessories available, many fully made up such as road vehicles, and they can adapt newer better quality r2r locos and rolling stock. For British HO to come out from the hadows of the hobby, it needs to appeal to what used to referred to as the 'average modeller' . Nothing to stop anyone going P87, but it should not be seen as only for fine scale modellers. I enjoy a challenge, one thing that appeals to me about British HO, but I set my sights at a realistic level(sorry about double pun). For some that might not be realistic enough, but I often see on so called fine scale layouts some very big howlers , in particular with buildings, brick ones mainly, and with my British HO project try to only use model building kits with correct(or near correct) brickwork. Auhagen building kits have a very nice Flemmish bond. Many USA building kits use stetcher bond, so only really suitable for more modern buildings. For track, the differences between types of track used in differnt locations is possibly more important than getting it exactly correct. Using heavier rail for mainline, and lighter weight rail for sidings, is far more effective. Most people don't notice that a specific rail is too big, but will notice when too sections of rail are different. I model in far more scales and gauges than most people, even OO. For it is odd that older track made by GEM, Graham Farish and Hornby Dublo actually looks better, despite having an incorrect sleeper to gauge ratio. I am using a mixture of those tracks for one of my OO projects, but for the odd point I am still using Peco Setrack! Even if something does not quite look right(and it can be disguised ), I would rather have something that works well, rather than something that just looks pretty but does not work. I build working model railways,not static dioramas.

Andy, that printer sounds interesting. I wonder if it survived. There is a new computer museum being set up in Manchester . I used to work in IT, and came across a few old pieces of computer hardware still being used. By early possibly start of the 70s ICL had lost its print software team who had set up their own company in Oxford. They then wrote most of the print software , probably still being used as they were way ahead of anyone else. I worked for the company for a few years, but they were too far ahead of hardware development and that led to problems. Now hardware has caught up, but software has not progressed as much.

the top of hook on r2r stock is far too low. The one on old Rivarossi locos was quite long and curved slightly towards loco. I see no need for magnets as the blade of grass , if positioned properly is effective.

Roger Nicholls used his 'blade of grass' idea for continental couplings as well as UK ones. I have tried(which led me to start designing my own coupling), but the main problem is the hook, or lack of it. I have had similar problem with OO9 couplings, which are in effect a slimmed down version of continental couplings. Rivarossi used to fit a metal hook on their locos. It worked well, and was not that visible,and that is part of my design idea. The simplest way is to remove one coupling from each wagon, and replace it with a simple hook made from wire(paper clip?) . Fitting it to wagon, even NEM pocket is only tricky part. Then install blades of grass in sidings where uncoupling is to be done. Note all sidings should be in same direction, as most are in reality, although the odd kick back siding is acceptable. Uncoupling points can be changed easily. My problem has been trying to use this on inset track, mainly due to lack of clearance under some locos.

There are experiments in catenary and pantographs on lorries to charge whilst moving on motorways in Germany. In effect an updated version of the trolleybus, which could work for a passenger vehicle, ie a trolleybus or trolley coach,maybe on short stretchs, or at stops. Induction charging works well with cookers, and that must pull quite a big punch for power. Only negative is the effect it has on people with pacemakers. Tyres and their wearing downis an issue, but lot of work is being done on 3D printed wheels and tyres. Thee is always going to be some eco impact, just have to get it as small as possible. Even walking wears down soles of my shoes, and there was one exhibition layout which was so long, the operators (jokingly) suggested putting in a claim for shoes wearing down!

again it is old ideas and methods that are being re-introduced.

The Irish battery train developed in 1930s using battery technology designed by Drum used a similar idea for recharging, but it took too long at intermediate stations,so tended to only be used at end of journeys. It took about a minute to recharge for each mile required. The Drum battery design evolved into what we now have. There has been quite a lot work done using induction charging. OK when you can determine where the vehicle will stop, so easy for trainsand trams , but difficult for buses. Also finding space for batteries can be a problem in British buses, an I think was a small problem with the new Birmingham trams. Just because an idea is old does not make it old fashioned . Think 20-30 years ago and tell people trams, and trolleybuses would make a come back, and they would not believe you. Compreseed air engines are being developed for cars, not sure how succesful, but should not be dismissed.

They were not bi-directional and there were turntables at each end. There is a photo showing a tram being turned, using horse power. As for compresed air now, there is work being done for cars. Problem with just using electrics is that it is not suitable for every location. Batteries are better than they used to be, but there is ronmfor alternatives. As with hydrogen fuel cells the cost of producing the compressed air has to be taken acount of.

One difficulty with continentalbogie locos is that often the chassis is too wide/high for British locos. Actual bogie length is less of a concern to me as long as it is close enough. Being the bogie it is not as visible as body width . For bogies I would recommend contacting Mark at Locos n Stuff and he should be able to sort out a bespoke 3D printed motor bogie.

I had come across these trams but not such a large system as in Paris. Compressed air was used a lot in small industrial locos, such a in coal mines, but wonder if it could make a come back for trams and trains. There are prototypes for compressed air cars, and from a safety angle would have thought compressed air was safer than hydrogen fuel cells. What was the range for compressed air. I can see than leakage would have been a problem,less so thes days, and if it needs warming up, ther are probably some ways to do that easily these days. Part of my philosophy is to build models of items from the past which might still be used today, in a slightly revised form.

As with most of the Playcraft stuff,it is a mixture of HO and OO,so mostly overwide. I may get around to doing some diesel designs. have book of drawings.

any more photos of the LMS articulated railcar. Also does anyone know of any scale drawings? There have been a few models, so presume someone must have done a drawing.

a good start. Quite a few others. Bachmann GE70 chassis , fits my Ford. The GE44 is probably also useful, and the GE45 (if you can find one) is one loco that ran in Britain. Then there is the Liliput fireless locos, in particular the 0-4-0, which does not look out of place on British layouts, and the motor/chassis is slim enough to fit in British HO bodies(I haveone in my GWR steam railmotor). Unfortunately the 0-6-0 version has a bulky motor fitted, making it difficult for smaller British locos. The Model Rail tram loco could probably be useful, but like the new Bachmann J72 is a bit pricey if all you want is the chassis. The main difficulty is not wheelbase etc but motor size. Even the L&Y 0-4-0 tank loco has this problem for some small locos. It only just fitted my L&y steam railmotor. Tender locos present less of a problem as tender drive is an option . If a r2r bogie is not suitabe I am sure Mark at Locos n Stuff can supply a bespoke 3D printed one.