xveitch
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by xveitch
-
-
@Lacathedrale With the addition of a crossover on platforms 3 and 4 and extending the layover siding to the baseboard's edge on Belle Sauvage, would it not be possible (with the later addition of extra baseboards) to extend the layout into a Wickham-esque scheme? That way you could get the best of both worlds - a quicker start on a smaller layout and the ability to slot it into a larger layout later (Wickham) with goods-handling facilities. You'd also retain the ability to exhibit the core section (Belle) if you wish.
Of course, this would require careful planning of the urban space/scenery around both sections of the layout, such that Belle alone gives the impression of a busy city terminus, yet when coupled with the Wickham section, something distinctly suburban.
Xander
-
1
-
-
The gradient (in percent), a = 100 x (height gained)/(distance to gain this height).
That means the required distance = 100 x h/a (in percent).
10cm is a typical minimum height between baseboards, and you wouldn't want to go above 2% grade (if you want long steam-hauled trains, go for 1%)
l = 100 x 10cm/2% = 500cm = 5m.
For steam hauled trains you'd need at least 10m of running to get down far enough.
If you want to extend your running length then it'd probably be better to go for a figure of 8.
Given that the height required is now a lot smaller (as you only have to clear a train height, rather than train + hand), the length required for the graded section is a lot smaller. Say 4cm between the rail tops:
l = 100 x 4cm/2% = 200cm = 2m
Xander
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
@Nearholmer Do you happen to have any pictures of that layout that you'd be willing to share? I would be interested to see how it came out
-
5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:
It’s got a number of similarities to my old H0 New England layout, although that was ‘waterfront’, the size is virtually identical, ditto the general principle of multiple industries/locations to shunt.
The way I used to operate that was on a ‘mixed train daily’ basis, with the train emerging from off-scene, dropping the passenger car at the depot, the ages spent switching, before disappearing again.
If you have a Janus, one option is to have two FY ‘bolt holes’, with one being the industrial line destination. Kent was the best for industries on BR(S) at that date, and steel (sheppey), paperwork’s, or cement might make good heavy industries. Maybe cement somewhere in the lower Medway valley as inspiration (it wasn’t very inspiring in the conventional sense!).
Or, a bit further up at Maidstone, which actually had a freight/industrial spur (overhead electrified too!) crossing a steep river valley to Tovil yard and paper mill https://www.kentrail.org.uk/tovil_goods_siding.htm.
Interesting - I haven't seen much paper traffic modelled before...
Was your layout good fun to operate? Any unforeseen limitations?
You mentioned FY 'bolt-holes' - do you mean just a hidden offstage siding which would represent the loading/unloading facility itself?
-
21 minutes ago, Harlequin said:
Hi Xander,
If the layout is set high how will you actually reach the fiddle yard? It’s not fully hidden but you’ve got bits of scenery in front of it.
Hi Harlequin!
The layout is probably going to be operated more like a shunting puzzle than anything else. The fiddleyard is therefore more a storage space to allow the on-scene stock to be varied than a key part of the operation - so I'm not planning to need to access this except in emergencies (in which case, a small step stool will do). Or I could reduce the layout height and operate it sitting on a bar stool or something similar...
Xander
-
49 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:
Hello zander,
I dont usually start with scenery but I do have a question: how do you see the river valley working. As it runs longitudinally and there is a bridge, by how much are you going to build up the banks in order that the bridge doesnt look silly? When you build up the banks the river becomes a crack in the baseboard, if you leave it flat, so maybe a canoeist can pass underneath, this means you have a flood plain and the tracks have to be banked a bit above the terrain.
I'm sure that layout wise you may get the suggestion to have a separate fiddle yard. The sense of things coming from 'somewhere'. Maybe its possible in that case to incorporate a casette system or lift. AS for the two versions they are very similar but I feel that its the left hand end that might need tweaking.
So for the river valley I was thinking along the lines of the Dart, as it runs alongside the South Devon Railway. It'll have to be smaller and slightly narrower, but that's the kind of feeling I was thinking of. I'd rather reduce the river's size further to make the proportions look right than try and plaster a huge river through the middle of the scene.
A canal is another option, unfortunately it doesn't appeal to me much: I'd rather downscale to a large stream.
In terms of bridge design, the AnyRail bridge is rather grandiose - a simple single-span design would be sufficient:
Xander
-
1
-
-
Hi All,
I've just moved into a new flat with a lovely long wall. This has got me thinking about what kind of layout I would like to build and I'd love to hear any thoughts from the RMweb 'Hive Mind' on it.
A couple of details and wishes:
- 5m by 0.5m
- 00-SF (Hand built track) - no exotic/complex pointwork
- Shunting focus
- Would like to run my 2 YEC Janus's (Jani?) and my early BR(S) locomotives - so probably Mid-to-Late 1950s, BR(S) region.
- DCC
- Would rather go for a countryside/edge-of-town feel rather than urban as I'd like to scratchbuild the buildings and don't want to be overwhelmed
- Scenic view along the whole length
- Most of the time I'll be operating it alone, but it should also be fun/challenging when a mate comes over. (Probably along the lines of the american-style wagon-ticket system)
- I'd like to try and get some kind of height variation into the scene
I'm trying to compromise between something that will help teach me new skills, something that I can get running fairly quickly and something that is interesting to operate. I'd like to learn how to build track myself, so I'm going for 00-SF, but this means I'd rather stay away from slips and threeway turnouts but diamonds would be okay. I'd also like to scratchbuild the structures, so would like a couple of interesting/diverse structures to tackle, but not whole streets of buildings!
After about a month of pondering, trawling the web and sketching, I think I've drawn up something that may suit my needs. However I'm more than interested in hearing completely different ideas, as well as changes/critique to the stuff I've drawn up myself!
[Above; Plan A]: This is what I came up with. The fiddle yard/storage sidings won't be hidden behind a backscene, merely behind the treeline and buildings - the layout will be mounted fairly high, so the low relief nature of the "Engineering Company" building shouldn't be too noticeable. I feel like the layout is nicely divided into three 'scenes' and there's lots of opportunities for parallel moves for when mates come over to play. The river gives some nice height variations and helps to break up the rather rectangular baseboard. However, if a train ran in to exchange a rake of wagons, there's no ideal space for the outgoing rake to be placed, ready to be taken away.
[Below; Plan B]: To give the outgoing rake of wagons its own siding, I've extended the short loco headshunt. i not really quite sure I like this though - for some reason it overpowers the right-hand side of the layout too much.
A nice element of these plans is that I could start track laying in the back right of the layout and get an inglenook layout up and running fairly early on.
I'm not quite sure what kind of traffic I'd like to depict... probably the more diverse the better.
Any thoughts or critiques, or completely different ideas would be welcome!
Thanks,
Xander
-
2
-
Apropos modern rail-based parcel traffic, I presume you've not seen the (fairly) recent development from the Rail Operations Group (ROG), called Orion: https://orion.railopsgroup.co.uk
They've ordered 5 Class 769 FLEX bi-modes and appear to have access to some 319's: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/more-flex-units-for-rog-as-it-expands-logistics-traffic-plans
Given their experience with rolling stock management it will be interesting to see how they implement this service...
I know very little about train pathing and priorities; maybe someone would be kind enough to answer a question: I presume that when delays occur, a passenger service will be prioritised over a freight service. Would the use of passenger-grade vehicles for this service increase it's priority (which would be very important for parcel deliveries, especially with the claims they're making), perhaps only over other freight services?
Xander
-
50 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:
The cabfront is original GWR and is a low, large-radius one. The cabsides and roof are not GWR. The chimney is tapered, not parallel. The balance weights look standard to me. The tender is a 3000g.
Fantastic thank you! I couldn't find any photos of the tapered type to compare it to so guessed it must be parallel. How do you tell the 2500g and 3000g tenders apart?
36 minutes ago, Tony Cane said:Knowing what to search for a quick internet search threw up the following sites that show the construction of the Westinghouse pump which is a two stage type.
http://www.bremsenbude.de/seiten/luftpumpe06.htm
https://www.martynbane.co.uk/airpumps/hohlventilen/slides/knorr2-02.html
Interesting; so presumably the original was replaced during its german overhaul, along with the roof and cab sides.
-
Hi All,
I'm planning to scratchbuild a Dean Goods in H0 for my local model railway club here in Austria. Being no expert in GWR matters, I'm wondering if anyone here would be kind enough to set me straight on a couple of things.
The subject in hand is 2435, as far as I know the only British locomotive to have come into Austria. After transport to Dunkirk, it was captured by the Germans, with a general overhaul at Cottbus. It came to Austria, hidden away in sidings for the duration of the war before being discovered by the Soviets and used in Soviet-occupied Austria.
2435 is from lot 92, built in 1893, with a narrow footplate and plain coupling rods. By this time it's had a B4 boiler fitted, but has it got a low or high roof cab? I'm also presuming a steel cab roof and not the earlier canvas-on-wood.
The smokebox door looks to be the newer, pressed type, without ring and the chimney appears to be of the parallel type. I'm guessing that the balance weights are the smaller plain design that I've read about?
Is the tender a 2500 or 3000 gallon Dean tender?
Does anyone have any information, drawings or dimensions of the WD modifications (Are the tanks on the side a pressure reservoir for the Westinghouse pump? And why is the lower piston cylinder casing twice as long as the upper?)
Can any modifications from its general overhaul by the Germans be seen?
Can anyone guess/give more information on the text on the locomotive.
Many thanks for all your help!
Xander
-
2
-
-
Salisbury shed allocations:
Both LSWR and SR shed allocations are available as searchable spreadsheets through the Southern Region E-Group:
http://www.semgonline.com/shed_allocations/shed-alloc.html
LSWR are also separate (you don't have to open them in Excel):
http://www.semgonline.com/shed_allocations/lswr-shed-alloc.html
And from 1945-67:
http://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2017/06/salisbury-1945-1967_80.html
-
I've decided to collate all of my research here, that way I've got it all together and available incase it interests anyone and if anyone can help then they know exactly what I do/don't know!
I've contacted both Salisbury Museum and the Network Rail Engineering Archives, although the museum had nothing on the goods yard, Network Rail had a plan that they've published on their website/shop (https://nr.printstoreonline.com/non-operational-railway/salisbury-milford/salisbury-station-milford-layout-19201641.html). I'll try a couple of other museums/collections to. I've also dug through the HMRS photo collection; despite a few around salisbury, there are none near the Milford side.
This is the only good photo of the rail side of Milford Goods that I can find:
There's a very useful website with images of the buildings on the street side and a couple of maps here: https://www.milfordstreetbridgeproject.org.uk/content/places/milford-goods-station/milford-goods-yard
Xander
-
4
-
-
I'm looking for any information or pictures of the Milford goods yard, situated on the east side of Salisbury.
The goods yard was originally the LSWR terminus station on their line from Eastleigh, opened in 1847, and turned into a goods-only yard with the opening of the current station in 1859.
Except for a couple of photos, OS maps and a plan from the Network Rail archives, I'm struggling to find much more information. I've read somewhere that the traffic was mainly coal coming in and livestock going out, but any more detail would be very useful. As the current station used to have a small goods yard, how was the traffic divided? Were certain goods sent only to the Fisherton side or was this only used by GWR traffic from Westbury? I can take a pretty good guess at which locomotives were used during its use by looking at the depot allocations, but have no hard evidence that a particular loco was the on duty shunter (I presume G6's at first, falling later to class 2 tanks and then 08's and 12's by the time of its demise).
Any particular book recommendations would also be a great help.
Thanks!
Xander
-
Grant Shapps has been appointed, according to the BBC. Anyone know who he is or if he's faintly useful/capable?
-
12 hours ago, mdvle said:
Does something like this layout - Mason Street (Goods) - interest you at all (note that the track plan does change with time as he builds it if the general idea does interest)
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/143331-mason-street-goods-br-blue/
You mention your a student, perhaps the answer (depending on what limits not just in budget but in time) isn't a layout at all at this point? You mention other parts of the hobby, so do you really feel you need a layout at this point or for the duration of your student time would it be sufficient just to work on the kit building part of the hobby?
Related, given your interests in hand built track and kit building, do you already have the tools needed for these tasks or are they going to need to come out of your limited budget?
That would be certainly the type of layout that I would be interested in if I go down the shunting layout style route. I get your point about the cost - this hobby is expensive but I really enjoy it so by taking my time and buying only what I really need, alongside scratch building what I can, helps to bring the costs down. Building a small layout itself isn't particularly expensive, it's usually the surrounding equipment and rolling stock that constitute the main costs.
7 hours ago, Mark Forrest said:I'd suggest taking a look through some of Iain Rice's books on layout design, his design philosophy would suit many of your requirements.
Personally, I've found finding prototype locations that can fit on an 8' long shelf layout and offer interesting operation to be a challenge. The awkwardness that makes shunting layouts fun was generally avoided in real life as it's inefficient. One way around this is to look at shunting puzzle layouts for the track plan, but use buildings from your chosen location to give a sense of place.
I find myself in the same position in that I have interest (and rolling stock) to suit a couple of different schemes, but as yet haven't decided which to progress (or at least which to do first). My modelling time is limited, so I'm using it to build more stock and put off the decision.
Final point, you mention hand built track and kit building stock, have you considered EM or P4 or 2mmFS? I find the technical challenge of working in P4 to be very satisfying.
I've dug through a couple of Rice's plans. They're very inspiring in that they have so much operational opportunity within such a small area. Your point about shunting layouts in general is very true; I guess that means that I would have to go for a freelance layout for anything operationally interesting or go for a prototype location for something more for a scenic and running perspective. Maybe I just build the minimalist option, with just a through track allowing me to run whatever stock I want to? Or a prototype location that has few enough changes over the years that I could run whatever year I want on the line, but with the correct stock?
Haha don't give me any more encouragement for EM; I'm already on the edge! I wanted to go for 00-SF first because then I don't have to convert chassis, plus the requirements on how perfect my kit-building skills are, are not so stringent. After I've gained the experience from that then I can decide whether the difference in EM is large enough for me to change. Just moving from 00 rtr track work to 00-SF handbuilt track makes a huge difference, so we'll see...
Just out of interest, how did you move from the traditional gauges into Finescale?
-
Hello All,
So there's a pair of empty boards hidden away and I'm feeling the need, like every modeller, to build something on them. The problem is that I'm stuck as to what. I'm therefore looking for some sound (or otherwise) advice on what looks feasible, similar ideas or developments thereof and anything else that comes to mind.
So first the basics: I've got two 120cm x 40cm boards. That gives me either 240 x 40 or 120 x 80 and these boards don't have to include the fiddle yard(s) (I've got enough room for that to be separate, if small). They have to be able to be taken apart and stored. I'm probably going to go for 00-SF, especially after following Stoke Courtenay.
In terms of what I would like to gain from the layout there are a couple of key points:
- learning to build hand-built track
- developing my kit building skills (and learning loco kit construction)
- attempting to reach a new level of realism
- something achievable
- operationally interesting
- short trains
- affordable (I'm a student!)
- exhibitionable (and therefore presentable)
I thought I would go through a couple of ideas that I've been looking at and see how they would match up.
Coleshill (later Maxstoke) Station on the Stonebridge Railway:
https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/coleshill.htm
A very small station with even smaller trains. I like the idea of modelling a prototype location and the midland railway itself. The trains are exceptionally short and offer a degree of shunting in the adjacent siding. It's also achievable, with only one main building and uncomplex track work. However I would need to drum up some more traffic if I model the time around 1916 ish.
Hampton Midland Goods Yard:
https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/hamptoninardenjunction.htm
At one end of the Stonebridge railway was a goods yard serving Hampton in Arden. The old engine shed for the Stonebridge railway was taken over by a timber merchant, giving interesting traffic. It's more complex when compared to Coleshill and therefore offers more shunting opportunities. Even so, in my limited space I'm not sure that I'd get enough in to make it operationally interesting.
Something similar to the MS&LR's Ducie Street (Manchester) Goods Station.
Although clearly too big for the space I have available, either a smaller similar prototype or a fictional, smaller version would provide plenty of shunting and a variety of rolling stock. I could set the warehouse facade against the backscene and then maximise the space available.
1970s/1980s Parcels depot:
A small previous passenger terminus converted into a parcels depot. Would allow me to use my Heljan 128. Other than shuffling GUV's around, what else would it entail? What other traffic would/could go through a parcels depot?
Engineering works:
Some kind of (possibly private owner industrial) railway serving various engineering facilities. Would allow a wide range of unusual wagon loads. Tall factory buildings and small locos would also create a good atmosphere.
Minimilist option:
Simply a single track line through the scene. Small cassette fiddle yards either side. Scenic section with undulating landscape, bridges, etc. Either based on a prototype or freelance. Maybe end of steam would give exceptionally short trains.
Would love to hear your thoughts!
Xander
-
I think this is the best shot so far; a sky view photo taken to record a nearby warehouse fire in 1932.
Xander
-
5
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:
Xander
IMHO silence is golden
And if you do find an answer to your quandary can I suggest you patent it?you me be reaching for the Philosopher’s Stone and whilst that is a laudable aim itmay be unachievable
Haha will do! I think there is no easy solution here! I'll have a little think over and chuck some of my thoughts up on here. Most likely it will require pre-block switching - I don't see a detection system that is fast enough or harmless enough to use. Also finding a system that avoids modification to either DC or DCC locomotives is tough. If anyone does see a better way, or a chink in my metaphorical armour, I would love to hear it.
-
1 minute ago, WIMorrison said:
best read this thread before you start saying anything about AC or DC
BTW - a DC loco on DCC will simply buzz loudly and get warm and after a period of time you wont have a loco, you will have something for the mantelpiece as a static exhibit
Ahh okay; guess that means the only option would be pre-block switching
-
3 minutes ago, Darius43 said:
Hi Xander,
My understanding of DCC is that power in the track is full on and the throttle is in the decoder within the loco. Furthermore the track power may be AC rather than DC with the rectifier circuitry in the decoder. Thus any DC locos on the track would either shoot off at full pelt or respond badly to the AC supply.
I am sure that others with much more knowledge than myself can expand further.
Cheers
Darius
Thanks Darius,
From what I understand, DCC sends an AC pulsed signal at a set amplitude. The pulse width conveys the bit information to control the decoder within the locomotive. It's true what you mentioned about the DC locomotives, however if the pulse was short and quick enough, a DC Locomotive would only move a couple mm at most. If this was still a problem then the block sections would have to be pre-switched.
Xander
-
3 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:
Why not just ensure that everyone enables DC running in CV29 of any DCC locos that are brought top the Club layout - if you do this then they will just act like any other DC loco that exists on the layout.
Or am I missing something?
Clearly, that is a possibility. However for club members, the ability of DCC Sound and other features is desirable, more than merely acting as DC locomotives. Otherwise they would generally be happy with driving the current DC locomotives on the layout.
-
Hi All,
Would love to pick your DCC-Brains about something I've recently been thinking about.
The two questions are:
A. Is there a way to detect, quickly and automatically, whether a DC or a DCC Locomotive is sitting on a section of track.
B. Is there a way to control DCC Locomotives generally, without using their DCC Address
It's probably best if I frame them in the situation itself.
My model railway club has a large analogue model railway system, including block systems, automated running between stations and various other DC - based technology. Therefore moving to DCC would not be desired. However, as more and more club members move over themselves to DCC, it would be ideal to find a way that DCC locomotives could also run. The easiest solution would be to build a small DCC model railway and run this separately. This would be, however, a resource drain on the club, as well as not contributing to the main model itself. I was thinking whether it would be possible to build a small piggyback circuit onto each DC control unit (including the automated DC controllers), that could detect a DCC locomotive and then convert the DC voltage into a DCC signal.
The operation steps would probably look something like this:
1. A block is selected, connecting the DC controller (and therefore the Piggyback DCC) to this block.
2. The Piggyback DCC sends a signal to detect the presence of a DCC locomotive
2a. When no DCC locomotive is detected, the Piggyback is bypassed, connecting the DC Controller to the track directly, as per normal.
2b. When a DCC locomotive is detected, the Piggyback converts the current DC voltage it receives from DC Controller into a DCC signal to drive the locomotive.
For question B, a work-around would be to program all the DCC Locos as Address 3 (Or any other number), so that the DCC Controller just controls number 3. As there is a block system, it would therefore control only one locomotive at a time. This is by no means ideal, as every locomotive would have to be programmed Address 3.
I see several problems:
1. DCC is a one-direction control system; there is no built in feedback system from the locomotives. Therefore detection would have to be somehow passive, or through another system (e.g. reed switches or other physical detectors).
2a. Either the detection would have to be so fast and fluid that as a train moves from one block to another, there is no observable stop and start.
2b. Or the system would need to track the DCC locomotive, pre-switching every block it moves into for DCC.
3. Except the example of programming on a programming track with more than one locomotive, where you can program several locomotives together, without specifying their DCC Address (usually something that is avoided), there is no example of controlling a DCC locomotive without before choosing its address rather than a general, open command.
4. What is the damage of sending a short burst of DCC information (to detect the presence of a DCC Loco) on a DC locomotive? This would undoubtably be very short, however if it occurred at every block intersection, this could add up.
Is there anything that I've missed? And is this even possible? Or is there a better solution that I haven't thought of?
Many thanks,
Xander
-
Would this rebuild be possible with the original motor/flywheel setup and just removing the UJ?
The new space under the boiler really makes a visual difference to the model. It looks like Oxford Rail have missed a trick, especially as it looks like the Hornby version has been carefully designed to not intrude into that space.
Can't wait to see what you do next
-
Hi All,
Yet another closed station is being considered for a reopening. Wilton is a small town near Salisbury in Wiltshire and has been without a station since 1966, but the growth of the nearby city of Salisbury requires better transport links, including a new station at Wilton.
The ex-SR main line from Waterloo passes through Wilton via Salisbury, going down to Exeter. The SR built their station, originally just 'Wilton Railway Station in 1859, being renamed as 'Wilton South' in 1949 and was closed in 1966.
The GWR's Salisbury Branch, linking in with their main line via Westbury, also had a station at Wilton. It was built in 1856 and had one platform due to the branch being a single line. When the line was doubled in 1896, an extra platform was fitted. Again, it was renamed in 1949 as 'Wilton North'. It was closed in 1955, although it remained open for goods traffic until 1965, and the goods shed can still be seen today, albeit in the guise of a shop.
That is how a town of, according to a 1861 census, 1,930 people gained two stations.
Recently, a group of organisations, including TransWilts, Wiltshire Council, South West Trains and Great Western Railway (ex-First Great Western) have put forward plans to rebuild 'Wilton North', renaming it as 'Wilton Parkway'.
This station will, according to one of their recent publications:
"Provide new capacity for passengers to access the National Rail Network using direct trains to London, Southampton, Swindon, Bristol and Cardiff
Support sustainable access to Salisbury with a highly attractive 5 minute journey time
Offer a fast, high capacity rail-bus link to the World Heritage Site at Stonehenge"
The plans are still very much at development phase, with Business Cases to prove and an assessment of its economic benefits to get through, but it is good to see recent developments in the UK's rail infrastructure pushing forward.
Xander.
http://www.twcrp.org.uk/WiltonParkway_2015_09.pdf
http://transwilts.org/tw/london-yeovil/wilton-parkway
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/13796760.Designs_for_new_Wilton_Parkway_project_unveiled/
http://southwestwilts.ourcommunitymatters.org.uk/news/wilton-parkway-station-proposal-find-out-more/
-
4
-
Xander
Getting youngsters involved - Scouts Model Maker Activity Badge
in Modelling musings & miscellany
Posted · Edited by xveitch
Okay, I'll take a punt at this topic, given that it's something I've been pondering about recently. While this is not directly aimed at the Scouts, I do feel there is room in RMWeb to attempt something similar.
Problem Statement:
It is clear that products with 'delayed-gratification' aren't inherently disliked by the modern generation (of which I count myself, being 24). Heck, the vast majority of video games require a significant amount of time and effort before you get good enough to really enjoy it. This is even more the case with online multiplayer games. It isn't that 'creating something' is less popular either - see LEGO, Warhammer and computer programming, all of which are doing pretty well.
So what is it that the last three have, that the model railway community doesn't? (Note: this doesn't necessarily mean we need to replicate them)
LEGO:
- Kits have an age range on the box (you known the complexity inside)
- Clear, detailed, colour instruction leaflet (you know you can understand and complete it)
- Everything is included that is required (no need to worry about what you otherwise require)
- 'Tied' into network of physical shops (far closer than in the model railway industry)
- Clear shop/product branding (the three previous attributes can be attributed to a product you have not yet bought)
- No specific required starting point (no previous requirements for a product)
Warhammer/Games Workshop:
- Clear, easy-to-find starting point (Just look at the 'Get Started' page: https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/get-started)
- 'Tied' into a network of physical shops (far closer than in the model railway industry)
- Clear starter set, containing everything required (https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/shop/warhammer-40000-introductory-set-2023-eng)
- Paint and tools sets for the beginner (https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/shop/warhammer-40000-paints-and-tools-set-gb-es-eu-ie-au-nz-us-ww-2023)
- Clear shop/product branding (I know what I expect based on what I already know)
- 'Play-ability' starts even from the most basic introductory sets
- Great YouTube presence with step-by-step videos (https://www.youtube.com/@officialwarhammer/videos)
Programming:
- Already have the base requirement (computer)
- Thousands of hours of YouTube tutorial videos
What are (in my opinion) some of the things holding back the model railway industry/community?
- Huge focus on (expensive) RTR; the stepping stone into the kit world (esp. rolling stock) needs to be more guided
- When buying kits, it's often unclear how difficult/easy they are from the box and often components are missing that need to be bought separately
- While physical model shops and clubs are great, the hobby's online presence isn't as good as it could be (type 'how to paint warhammer' into YouTube vs 'how to paint wagon kit'). It's clear that youngsters are connecting with each other far more over the internet than via clubs/shops (although the latter remain very important)
- There's no clear pathway to collect the skills/elements required. This would have (in the past) been lead by modelling shops. In the modern day this needs to have an online element too.
What concrete actions do I think the RMWeb community could take?
While the idea of the 'scouts' physical presence is nice, I'm not sure how easy it would be to expand this, especially given the earlier raised child protection requirements. I guess I'd rather push for something we could do on here.
I reckon RMWeb could further strengthen its position as a 'guiding hand', especially for newcomers and those interested in furthering their skills.
My proposal would tie a clear modelling pathway with a hand-picked collection of kits (all with YouTube step-by-step guides) and an 'Achievement'-style online badge system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_(video_games)). So replicating the 'scouts' badge system into an online format.
Steps:
- The RMWeb Homepage would have at its very top a clearly listed link to a 'Get Started In The Hobby' page, which itself would contain a brief introduction to the hobby, an explanation of the Achievements system and a link across to it.
- A new RMWeb Page at the top (so next to 'Ally Pally Show', 'Classifieds', 'Browse More') called 'Achievements' (or 'Badges', if preferred).
- A matrix of individual achievements at different difficulty levels for different modelling 'streams'/'types' (say, rolling stock, scenery, buildings, electrics, etc)
- For each achievement, a clear description of what is required and a step-by-step YouTube video. Say, for example, the Achievement was 'Build a Wagon Kit' (Type: Rolling Stock, Difficulty 3/10), the page for that achievement would recommend at least one easy-to-access and build wagon kit (say, https://peco-uk.com/collections/parkside/products/sr-12ton-uneven-planked-ventilated-box-van-kit?variant=7435637456930), with links to buy it and any required parts for it. It should also have a Step-By-Step YouTube video of constructing said kit.
- Maybe a fun way of reflecting the Achievements one has on the RMWeb 'User' page.
- A dedicated 'Get Started' area of the forum (?)
The Achievement list/matrix would (at least in my imagination) be sorted by 'Type' left-to-right (So say, Rolling Stock, Buildings, Scenery... etc.) and by difficulty top-to-bottom (so 1/10 to 10/10), with later achievements building upon earlier ones (for example, an easy etched-detailing achievement giving the basics for an etched-kit one).
While it could appear that this is simply a 'gamification' of the modelling experience, I would disagree. I would hope that it would achieve the following:
- A clear modelling pathway is achieved (if you're unsure you can do it, watch the video. If you're unsure what you need, buy the recommended kit and follow the video step-by-step. If you've achieved the last achievement, chances are that you can achieve the next in line)
- A clear entry point into the hobby (Introductory page, start at the 1/10 Achievements)
- Something that can be achieved by us, the RMWeb community, together, with no specific manufacturer support required
- Something that can grow if it is popular (perhaps manufacturers/modelling shops can create product packages to meet the requirements of an achievement, similar to how Games Workshop has an introductory kit)
- Clear, step-by-step YouTube videos increase the likelihood that people are ready to move beyond RTR.
- If it doesn't work, the work put into it can be folded back into the standard forum
Interested in thoughts, constructive criticism, alternative ideas...
Xander
Note: Of course, an Achievement/Badge can be gained even if the exact recommended kit/etc wasn't built, but an equivalent. Just that recommending an exact kit and having a matching step-by-step video massively reduces the insecurity of a newcomer.