cabbie37

May I develop this question slightly. Now I have a clear idea of how to allow for the required clearances, I have started to think about the use of the 'release' road. I had it in my mind that this would be a two platform station with platforms on either side of the two tracks we have been talking about. Obviously there would not be so much traffic coming and going that there might be two trains in the station at any one time - or would there? I'm now thinking would the second platform, on the release road, be a bit of a white elephant? I'm sure not, but can't imagine how that would work - unless the points arrangement became a double crossover, or the train that used that platform was pull-push (which is planned for..). I guess what I don't understand is how a tereminus like this would have been used. I'm afraid my experiences at Bedhampton Halt and catching the Hayling Billy for a day at the seaside as a lad don't help in this instance...

Thanks again both. Looking at the PECO web site templates, the difference between small, medium and large point lengths are Small: 210mm Medium: 225mm Large: 250mm(?) Large may prove a little generous, but the diffference between small and medium is less marked. As a rule, I am a believer in 'less is more' so won't be trying to cover every square inch of the boards with track.

Thanks @Nearholmer, that is a perfect explanation. As a space saver, would small radius points work here or should I be thinking about either medium or large radius points to give a more realistic look? I'm afraid I'm not very good at this track stuff!! (but learning - everyday is a school day!) Hugh

Sorry, yes, I should have said that. 00 and Peco code 75...

I'm at the mulling stage on a layout that will be based on boards 1200mm long. As the setting will be a small terminus, I'm trying to work out platform lengths, etc that I will need for my envisaged trains. The likely sets will be 3 x 59ft Maunsell plus a 4 wheel van of 36ft. Lets say likely motive power to be a T9, length 64ft. Gives a total overall length (roughly) of a train length of 280ft = 1120mm. I admit, these are rough numbers at this stage. To add a runaround, I need enough room to detach the loco, run forward over the point and then have enough space so that the loco doesn't foul the leading carriage as it traverses into the release road. This is where I am struggling to work out the length needed to permit that. Can anyone help me work through my problem? I want to decide how the board joins and platform length and any other trackwork might work (eg a bay platform, perhaps some other parallel track that could act as siding or a small good shed etc) before I start thinking this through in detail.. The other option would be not to have a runaround and have the incoming loco released by a station pilot removing the carriage stock first. Though I think that would be unlikely to be prototypical operation for the sort of terminus I envisage. Many thanks in advance for pointers...

Hello Jonathon.. I did have one idea that might (perhaps) be relatively easy for you to do. The lock chamber kit presumably could be modified to be a 'narrow' lock of 7 foot width. Single top gate and a pair of gates at the bottom end.. Hugh

As a relatively new (returning) modeller, I find many of these photos extraordinary and a real inspiration.... Life has moved on since my Triang Jinty and 3 wagons on track hastily assembled on the front room carpet... I do offer my sincere congratulations and admiration to all of the people who have posted here... Hugh

Bingo! @CKPR https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/293705917493?ul_noapp=true hth....

Life is full of missed opportunities.... Hey-ho.... Hugh

I would be happy to take these, if they are still available. I could pick them up on Sunday 16th around midday as I will be your way then if that suits? Hugh

I've been loathe to contact Dave as I know he has a lot on his plate at the moment, but if no-one crops up here, I will drop him a note... thanks...

I've just bought a couple of part built Roxey Mouldings LBSCR Pull Push coaches on Ebay. Sadly, they have arrived without instructions. Does anyone have copies of either 4C44 or 4C45 instructions they could spare? A scan in PDF form would be fine... many thanks.. Hugh

Thanks again - yes I've now downloaded the xls and have already found it very helpful. I was fortunate enough to snap up a couple of bargain BCK and BTK on Ebay last night so my collecton of yet to be made Ian Kirk high window kits can breathe a sigh of relief...

Thanks Pete - so the difference between the two releases appears to be low window for the earlier tranche and high window for the later. That makes complete sense and I'm embarrased to admit I hadn't twigged that when doing me earlier researches.. Presumably, to all intents and purposes - apart from the change in window profile - the carriages are the same 'standard'... thanks once again.. Hugh

I apologise in advance if this is a really simple question, but I can't get to the bottom of it, despite having done my own researches. I am considering acquiring some of the seemingly excellent Hornby Maunsell coaches but cant get to grips with what differences there are in the releases around 2008(?) and then the more recent versions. For example, R4300D and R4768A *seem* to be the same carriage, both Brake Thirds, yet command different prices. Can some kind person help me out of my misery please? many thanks for any guidance offered...

Hmm... I have #1 - 216 already, so would be interested in #217 onwards.

Sounds like it's worth experimenting with, at least. It might be that @Barclay encountered a rogue.. As I say, it does seem that Peco still sell an appropriate 60:1 gear set, see post #5 earlier in this thread... Thanks for everyone's input...

That's a possibilty. As you know, I received these part built and it may yet be possible to bend a small flange in the bottom of the solebar. That might be tricky, though, I'd have to make up a former to bend it round. It's certainly something to consider next time I'm at my bench. Thanks for the idea and observation...

Thanks, @Bucoops you may be right, but there is little I can do about that, I guess. What I have been doing in the interim is experimenting with other mounting bosses. I had a dig around and found some that come from Roxey LSWR coaches and tried those. As they matched the ride height for the bogies, they were much better, but still some fouling took place. I will have to play with some washers/spacers to get it running right and have to accept that the buffer height may not be perfect. At least, as pull-push, they only have to match one end against the loco.. Careful assembly of the other bogies and placing the spring castings as low as I reasonably can on the side frames will help... I do like the idea of reducing the wheel diameter and will keep that tucked away as an option.. The next couple of weeks will see me away from the bench, so hopefully more progress to report mid-March

Thanks @bécasse, I've already spoken to Dave and got the bits and pieces I need The rather slow progress is being reported in the thread

Things never run smoothly, do they.. The carriages came without bogies, as I said so I’ve now assembled a pair of the Roxey ones and trial fitted them. Of course, they were miles out on the buffer height and the only way to resolve that was to reduce the ‘boss’ height on the bogie mounting plates. Some careful measurement showed that i need to reduce the boss by 2.5mm. Careful but slightly forceful application of a flat bladed screwdriver saw them soon pinging across the table. I’ve reduced the boss by the 2.5mm with a razor saw, but not as flat as i would hoped and I may have to finish with some sandpaper on a piece of plate glass and then replace any excess removal with a washer of appropriate thickness. Trouble is that now that they are at roughly the correct height, the bogies appear to be fouling the inside of the sole bar. I may have to accept that they will run slightly higher than standard (13.5mm ?) to overcome the fouling..

Yes, of course, I hadn't thought about it being an imperial size - 3/32" comes out at 2.38mm which sounds about right. Next question, who does gears with a 3/32" bore? I don't think it's a case of running a 3/32" drill bit down something smaller... Edit to add: THis might be just what I'm looking for. The right bore size for the worm, the axle size will suit the gibson wheels I have and the 60:1 ratio will probably be just fine.. https://peco-uk.com/products/601-ratio-1-8-bore-gear-3-32-bore-worm-gear-and-worm-set Any counter observations?

That, I guess, is encouraging as that would seem to suggest they provide sufficient grunt. The question still remains, however, how to transmit the drive to the axle? Could I use a conventional gearbox, mounted somehow. Drill and tap the plastice 'facing' on the ECM version to match somthing perhaps? I'm still a bit perplexed as to shaft diameter, that seems not to match any commonly available worm gears.. Any suggestions?

A while back I purchased these 3 motors among larger collection of bits and pieces. Does anyone recognise them. They are marked Bulher - including the one with the ECM sticker. They are also marked 45 2 12, the ECM marked 201 12. The dimensions are 16mm x 8mm. Shafts are sheathed up to 2.25mm, the base shaft size being 1.75mm. Do people think that hey have a future in a locomotive? I have on the list next to do a chassis for a Wills/SEF LSWR G6 0-6-0 which will be a shunting engine. I wonder whether one of these might suit? My practical question might be what gearbox and how might one fit it?

The 2 carriages came exactly as you see them in the photos, so I needed quite a few ancillary bits and pieces to complete them. Dave @ Roxey Muldings couldn’t have been more helpful and knew exactly what I needed when I explained the situation and this little lot turned up a couple of days later. As you can see, I have already assembled the first pair of bogies that went together quite nicely. I must learn to control the amount of solder I use and had quite an excess when I soldered the axle bearings in place that I had to clean up with a file. I suppose I could have used super glue, but I was a little nervous of getting it in places it shouldn’t be in. At least with the solder, I can see where it is going. The clean up only took a few minutes.. The main problem will be the roof as one of the Falcon/Jidenco problems is an incorrect roof profile. That remains a bridge waiting to be crossed and currently resides in the too difficult basket..