NCB

The easy route is of course narrow gauge. Plenty of examples of models based on fictitious lines. Also plenty of scope for building lines in new places. For example, Skye had a couple of mineral lines but there were proposals for a more general purpose system. Then there are the light railways, often but not always worked by an existing railway. Something more mainstream is more difficult. But ... how about creating an extra South Wales valley or two with an independent company serving the coal mines there, along the lines of the other, varied, South Wales independants? Could be a good choice if one was interested in something Edwardian rather than earlier. Cross-country lines similar to the Hull & Barnsley? Or a cross-country joint line like the M & GN but, say, linking Coventry with Felixstowe? Or suppose that the Midland and South Western Junction Railway was actually a joint line between the Midland and the South Western, rather like the Somerset and Dorset, using stock of either in its own livery?

I think being creative is fine. It gives new life to this particular niche. Models are for running, not for sticking in a museam. Nigel

Whoops! Here's the correct link: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112237-6-wheel-chassis-for-gnr-coaches-oo/?hl=cleminson Think you're on the right track. With the end ones able to rotate those wheels will have a healthier angle to the track, and it then depends on whether the central wheelset movement is sufficient for your curves. I will be watching with interest; the Mike Lloyd drawings of the Cambrian 6 wheelers are tempting :-) Nigel

Be nice if there was some 3mm ones as well

Chris If you're using 16.5mm track then there ought to be plenty of room for sideplay for the wheels, so long as you have an arrangement which allows side-play. What I mean is this. If your axles run in the actual axleboxes then you will have virtually no sideplay (unless the axleboxes and springs themselves move, which complicates things), and a 6 wheeler will find any curve a difficulty. But if your axles run in bearings inside the wheels, and you have no axle projecting beyond the wheels, then you can get a fair amount of side-play, depending on the spacing between the bearings. However, a better arrangement would either be a Cleminson truck, or the bogie in one half suggested above. But in either case you need bearings on the inside to get room for wheels to move a useful distance. Might be worth while dropping Worsley Works an email asking if he has a Cleminson truck kit available in 4mm. I've seen a pic of an etch of one somewhere, and I think it was Worsley. It wouldn't be too difficult to knock one up from scratch, once one has understood the principals. There's a good article on building a Brassmaster's Cleminson here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82047-traeth-mawr-building-coaches/page-122 The thing I don't like about that kit is that the outer wheels use outside bearings, so the springs and W irons move, whereas if they all had inside bearings like the middle axle then, in my view, it would be much simpler, and also there's more side-play possible on the wheels. That article also has some interesting alternative ideas.

Looking at the pic in #17 above, I don't think you can tell that the louvres aren't see througth. I suspect using the etch as is with the proposed paper mask if desired inside would do fine. Nigel

Yep. Even by that time it was only the prestige trains at which an attempt was made for the corridors to be on one side. A lot of other mainline services included other companies' stock anyway, so it was a bit pointless.

Pointing in all directions. Make of that what you will. Nigel

There's plenty of South Wales 0-6-2s which made it into BR days, some partially rebuilt, some in more or less original condition. Very minor mods to the 56XX chassis (being based on Rhymney 0-6-2s) would cover a lot of them. Some pre-grouping Rhymney stock would go down nicely.

Diet Coke is good at brightening up tarnished etchings; don't know if it would work in this instance though. Essentially, phosphoric acid.

For 6 wheel vehicles, some form of flexible chassis, such as the Cleminson truck, works wonders. I built a few Cambrian 6-wheelers from carved up Ratio 4-wheelers, and they were hopeless going round corners, even shallow ones. I modified one to use the Cleminson principle, and it would sail happily around a 12" radius test curve. Better than a 4-wheeler.

Would avoid a wire-brush; it could damage the tinplate further and create problems for the future. A soft brush as bigherb suggests is OK.

Imagination is a wonderful thing. Looking at a layout we happily fail to register the sharp curves, short trains, compressed track formations, or whatever. What matters is the skill which presents a vision to the viewer. Quality modelling can still be done with all sorts of restrictions.

Double-sided tape. No mess, instant stick. You can get some tape (forget where from) which is low tack so you can move if necessary. It'll hold the track easily well enough, and you can then ballast when you please and the ballast glue will complete the job.

Been interested in this for some time. Came across a decent article on the web; for the moment can't locate it but will have another bash. In the meantime, there's some pics on Geograph: https://www.geograph.org.uk/browser/#!/q=Railways+%5Eso8932 That search doesn't pick up all the Geograph ones. If you Google "Tewkesbury Station images" you will dig up more pics (some of course of the wrong station). Here's an interesting article: http://www.tewkesburydirect.co.uk/times-gone-by/ There's one pic of a 4F crossing the High Street. Nigel

"worn out" means they were due a heavy general shopping; in the GWR's eyes it simply wasn't worth it at the time. No locomotive is that worn out that it can't be refurbished, if required. They weren't really direct alternatives to the 28XX class, which were arguably the best and most effective 2-8-0 heavy freight locomotives produced in Britain.

It's is pretty clear from reading the Government guidance on copyright that publishing copyright material on the internet is definitely NOT OK. As a particular example, publishing material from a book which is or was commercially available is a breach of copyright. Copying something from a book you own and sending the copy to somebody privately with whom you are engaged in a joint research exercise may be OK. Just about. It would depend on the particular exercise and what was copied. Exceptions are such things as quoting short paragraphs from a book to illustrate a point ("fair dealing"). Publishing a picture from a book wouldn't be fair dealing. You might get away with publishing a small portion of a picture to illustrate a point, but don't bank on it. Nigel

Are the cylinders and slide bars white metal, or something else?

Now has a new leading splash page, with pics giving a flavour of the Society's activities and members' interests. Part of a process of adding a bit of colour to the offering.

Simon Nice! Think it may depend on the scale used. Wasn't keen on it in 4mm and even less so in 3mm. Here's the chassis and loco: The boiler has a lot of lead in it, the white metal castings help, and there's some lead under the cab floor. The loco balances over the leading driver, which is where I want it. So about 2/3 of the weight is carried by the drivers, shared equally between all 4 wheels, and 1/3 by the bogie. Haven't tested it to its limit, yet, but I've had it pulling the equivalent of 4 bogie coaches with no sign of slipping, which is more than it's likely to pull in practice. Biggest weakness is that I could only squeeze in a Mashima 9/16 open frame motor, which pulls OK but isn't good at slow speeds. Did try partial springing in some 6-coupled locomotives. Middle axle fixed and driven, rear axle pivoted, front axle sprung, and weight just rear of middle drivers. Works OK, but with experience I think double beams on the rear two axles and pivoted front axle would be bettter, and I'm about to give that a try. Nigel

Simon True, I've done a Dukedog chassis this way. Works nicely. Question: I'm not sure about your comment about springing. I'm assuming that an engine has a fixed amount of weight, so that it all that's available no matter what sort of suspension you use. So I don't quite see how springing would increase weight on the drivers. With the Metro and double beam compensation, then roughly the same amount of weight is carried by each of the 6 wheels. Altering the balance point of the body can very this slightly; further back and there's more on the drivers, but you have to be careful that you don't take too much weight off the leading wheels. Cheers Nigel

3SMR list LS30 ROD 2-8-0, cast body plus etched tender. Suspect it's the same body and the tender has come from a different source; the tender is also list separately, as LT8.

Found somebody who'd seen it at the Southampton show. Thought it was very good. Edit: somebody else said it was excellent; highly recommended.

Haven't the faintest. But I'll ask on the 3mm Society's egroup to see if anybody's come across it. Have heard it mentioned somewhere, maybe in the Collectable/Vintage section.

2-4-0s and 0-4-2s are dead easy if you whack twin compensation beams on the drivers, and have the third non-driving axle pivoted about it's centre. Balanced right you can get weight distributed evenly over all 6 wheels, which helps with road-holding, adhesion and pickup. I've just finished a chassis for a Metro tank in 3mm this way, and it gives better running than my previous method, which was a fixed leading driver, pivoted rear driver, and a sort of pony truck for the leading axle, with weight balanced over the drivers. Here's a pic: : You can just see the lower compensation beam, sitting above the lower sideframe; it's pivoted in it's centre by a cutdown 1.5mm axle, which can be seen projecting slighty above the centre of the top sideframe. There's enough room on the leading driven axle to stick a High Level Slimliner Compact+ gearbox. The compensation beams are similar in principal to those I used in my Rhymney M; see: Had the beams etched. If you're doing a lot of scratch building it might be worthwhile teaching yourself enough CAD to draw artwork for etching; I went in that direction because I was absolutely hopeless doing things like drilling holes accurately where they ought to be :-( I've both an Albion and a Seaham on my to-do list, and I'll be using this approach. Nigel