Methuselah

Nice to see both types of photo. Your edits are excellent - Carry on....

...eeeesh......very sad. It looks as though a many of these issues are related to either the suitability of the packaging - or the carrier. It's a heavy loco with some delicate plastic parts. The packaging has to bear on strong areas without delicate detail - if not.......... There is also no doubt that some carriers are more prone to damage.

Fascinating to see the innovative features on this new loco. With regards to pulling power - it seems that it will pull scale-length trains too. It just gets better. Has anyone worked-out what ratio the gearbox is yet?

That looks very promising - I'd remove the front coupling anyway. I think those wanky smokebox-stays will have to be replaced when I get mine, an easy job. The grotty BR scheme rather detracts from what is, in reality, quite a handsome design. I've ordered mine in it's original GW scheme needless to say. This looks like a real slogger - exactly what I need. The loco appears to be very good value for a prototype that was small in number and few would have expected to be available as RTR. I think I will be very chuffed when it arrives, it looks a beaut'..... :-)

Now be kind, dear reader, - this old fool is on a vertical learning-curve...! Just over a year ago, when I 'accidentally' embarked (Put it down to a lack of self-control...!) on this project, I had no locos whatsoever - absolutely zip - not even the twinkling of an eye. I now have well over a hundred, and it would be hard to imagine a more eclectic collection - and no, they are not all expensive locos. Many were dirt cheap. OO;- Most, perhaps 80%, of the OO locos are RTR, albeit modified in some cases. P4;- The P4 locos are either RTR suitable for conversion (Few.), or, more usually, kits converted or 'to convert' to P4, a few are EM with already compensated chassis, so I hope relatively easy conversions to P4. With the exception of the GW Diesel Railcars, they are all steam, since I'm only interested in pre-1947. Diesel;- There will be GWR Diesel Railcars in both gauges. However, I have, for entirely practical reasons, acquired a small fleet of diesel-prototypes from the BR era. These are my 'Mules' for track testing. I chose these for a number of mainly practical reasons;- They do not have delicate details to be easily broken. To save wear & tear on the steam types. They have lots of wheels and therefore adhesion. (More anon....) They are very simple mechanically. They are easy to maintain & modify. They are cheap as chips. I chose the Mainline early green Type 4, 1Co-Co1 / Type 40/45 (I'm a bit confused on that...!), as I was lucky enough to find several that were NOS (new-old-stock). This was primarily because they have a lot of wheels - (......and of all the diesels, these were a type that I often used to travel behind many years ago, on late night mail trains. I think the tickets must have been cheaper...!). However - I don't actually have any affinity with non-steam whatsoever - these 'Mules' will have to work hard to 'prove' the trackwork. Now - the more modern/diesel-oriented reader will immediately realise that despite appearances, these models really only have a small four-wheel driven part of only one bogie. Typically, I didn't realise this..! (Doooh..!) so there may well be much more suitable 'Mules' out there, waiting for me to discover them. My plan for my 'Mk.I Mules', was, if necessary, to put two motor-bogies in each shell and fill the rest of the shell with lead-shot. Two ran OK, but a third used example ran poorly, so I took it apart to service the motor. It ran better afterwards, but it did reveal what a Heath-Robinson design they are. Generally, I have been very impressed with the modern RTR - and this was really what originally drew me back into railway modelling. Apart from the obvious improvement in scale-appearance over nearly fifty years, it's the vastly improved running that has been most noticeable. The modern Hornby locos seems pretty good, the Bachmann - even better. Both are generallysmooth and quiet - and that's even before adding DCC. Then there are what I term as 'Middle-Aged' locos, such as older Hornby, Lima & Mainline etc. I suppose these were produced very roughly between the late 1970's to around 2005. These seem to be quite good scale-wise - especially the Mainline. However, these latter locos do seem to run very very weakly (-and noisily...!) for some reason - and I may have to look at the possibility of re-motoring these if practicable, as they usually look pretty good otherwise. Types with congenital problems will need to be weeded-out and disposed-of. Finally there are the real oldies.... Now some may think it rather odd that I would even countenance running these when I have modern OO, let alone P4 running too. Here I would refer folks back to the original concepts that I'm striving to meet;- The OO is primarily for outdoors - where running scale-length trains and entertainment are the prime objectives. - ie; The 'impression' and practicality are uppermost. For these locos, power and reliability are paramount, but they will be variously upgraded insofar as it is practical to do so - and they'll all be DCC - fitted. It'll be tough on the locos outside too, and the old ones are dead-easy to maintain. It's dirtier outside - and then there will be the unavoidable gradient. Poor scale attributes aside - and the fact that some are rather noisy (Less of an issue outside.), many of those old locos are real sloggers. For example, I have an old Hornby Dublo 8F, re-wheeled with Romfords and upscaled with added detail. That's ideal, it's got power, weight and lots of wheels, - so lots of real grip. Some of the OO are metal kits, and those too have the weight to get some decent grip. Weight is a biggie, after all, and it was the only reason the old 'singles' worked at all. (Don't get me going on Singles...). The P4 locos are nearly all kits with just a few converted/convertable RTR thrown-in. They will not have to contend with the dirt, gradients and long trains that the OO locos will, and the Branch will also be much slower paced, with - probably - mechanical point operation and signalling. All the rest - the OO, indoors and outside, will be electronically-controlled, via a PC. I have some very interesting locos that I'd really like to make P4, but there is no historical precedent on the Branchline for doing so. That said - I have heard, anecdotally, that an errant Castle used the Branch during the war - but I have not seen any documentary evidence for that unusual event....! Hardly any of the non-RTR are actually truly scratch-built. They are either kits or what I term my 'Chimera', which are built from a mixture of kit, RTR and scratch assemblies. One example of the latter for example is an LMS Crab, which has an etched chassis, a Bachmann 'body' and a Hornby tender. It sounds odd, but is actually an excellent loco. Of course, my original intent was that one lonesome GWR loco for the mantlepiece...... Now things have broadened-out a lot, fuelled by the freedom the garden railway offers - and my own unbridled capriciousness. There will now be many trains that could in no way be genuinely justified in the scenic area, but make a very nice rolling display of their own in the garden. This would include Caledonian, GNR, LNER and Southern - although the latter Grouping hasn't materialised - yet. I can foresee other colourful arrivals such as Chatam Wainrights and some LBSC perhaps. This sudden plurality of interest has quite surprised me. This more diverse strand seems to have one primary limitation, and that is the lack of realistic appropriate RTR stock for some of the old Pre-Grouping companies. Of course I can built kits or even scratchbuilt, but we are back in conflict with the big bogie of time again..... So whilst I am building (some.) locos and stock for the OO part of this scheme, I will always go for RTR - or ready-built kits if I possibly can. I have to say that the average built-up kits that I have acquired are pretty poorly made. Some of the more irredeemable locos will be sold-on. I will only keep those requiring modest remedial work. In some cases, knuckling-down to building is really the only option - but I have to ration these. For example, I have a DJH kit for a Midland Fowler 0-10-0 'Big Bertha' for that garden 'Lickey Incline', as well as a number of otherwise unobtainable Singles of the GWR, LNWR & MR etc. I'm as yet too inexperienced with current parts and assemblies to make any serious assessment of motors and gearboxes etc. There are a lot of older kit-built locos out there. Perhaps around a third run terribly, if at all, perhaps a similar percentage run well-enough for pulling, but have very poor starting/slow-running performance. Less than a third might be describes as 'good', and none thus far as 'excellent'. Clearly, a good motor, a well built gearbox and a suitable gear ratio are paramount before one even looks at fangled electrickery. One thing that has puzzled me is that I haven't seen any mention of the use of Coreless motors. I wonder why....? These are commonplace in model aircraft, drones and boats. I have alluded earlier to Singles. These are a particular peccadillo that I have developed with my rediscovered interest in model railways. I have a couple of dozen of one sort or another. These range from the dear old Triang types, through modified versions, through kits, to the latest - yet to be delivered - Locomotion Stirling RTR. This latter gains additional traction from a powered rear axle-set. What it will pull remains to be seen, but the single-axle drivers are very limited in what they will pull. I'm planning to add as much weight to the locos as possible to ameliorate this issue. I have examples for the GWR, LMS, LNWR, Midland and Caledonian and await the GNR Stirling with great anticipation. Finally, - DCC. This is all new to me, and as I've touched on elsewhere, I have collected some Lenz gear. This on the basis that it was the originator, it's German, - so it'll be well made, and it generally also has a good reputation. The decoders - at least basic non-sound examples, now seem to be quite cheap. The sound-decoders are quite another matter. Whilst the small speakers seem basically cheap, the sound-decoders themselves are crazy prices. For this reason, I have been speaking to some contacts with regard to - just perhaps - producing my own. I'm certainly not going to spend £10,000 or more just on decoders. Of course, this may well be a complete non-starter, but don't bet on it..... Can they be produced..? Of course. Can they be made small-enough to a price..? ..ummmm maybe. Can they be produced economically..? No idea whatsoever....yet. My target is to get them under 50% of the cost of the commercially-available examples - but I'm in no mad rush. I'm still hoping that someone else will get some cheaper ones made and save me the hassle....! The P4 Branch, may just possibly, remain analogue, as operation is so simple, but the rest is intended to be automated DCC. I have downloaded an App' that I have on all my Apple devices, which is called 'TouchCab'. I have Wi-Fi boosters anyway, so all of my property, including all of the garden, falls well within good Wi-Fi coverage. This means that, in theory at least, I can use my Mac, iPad or iPhone anywhere on site to effect basic control via the interface on the Lenz System which I have already acquired. As yet, I do not know if the TouchCab can cope with the automation itself - or whether I will need additional software. At the moment my plan is to built a section of the upper, scenic level of the layout for testing locos and the Lenz DCC system to get a feel for what is achievable. As I have mentioned previously, I'd originally fancied the very well-presented Bachman system, but there was a plethora of comments online to the effect that the Bachman's control range was very limited, even indoors, which would be of no use to me whatsoever, sadly, as the system looks very user-friendly. How then, will the final design operate? My intention is that the laptop will run the OO network rather like one uses iTunes or similar. That is to say there will be various playlists. Each train will be called-out of its dedicated loop in turn, and returned there afterwards, just like a tune being played. The trains themselves will be set-pieces, and will stay coupled normally. The P4 will probably be three/screw-link for simplicity and aesthetics. I haven't finally decided for the OO yet. I'd ideally like to go three-link, but that's a lot of very fiddly work, and messing with all the stock will devalue it, especially if the toy couplings will no longer fit back on. I'll probably just leave most as they are. The intention is that the train and it's constituents will reflect the typical load for that loco in that period, as it is liveried. The P4 Branch is fairly simple. I'm hoping that I can arrange some basic interlocking so that when the signals are changed to allow a branch train to cross the main-line, this will trigger the main-line trains to stop automatically - or prevent the signals moving if a train is already in the block etc. With relatively few trains in the main OO lines on the upper, scenic level, I doubt that this will present a major issue. The main gyrus on the lower level is four-tracks. There will be no points outside whatsoever, and about 95% of all the points will be associated with the storage-loops on the lower, gyrus level. The main running lines will have only three junction areas. One will be the exit & return for the garden lines. The second and third will be to launch & recovery points from the storage loops inside the main gyrus. However, to keep it entertaining in the garden, since it's quite long, the garden-loop ideally needs to be able to cope with several trains running on any loop at any given time. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, there is an outbound, a return, and one inside the building, so three. That means the PC-based program will have to keep them separate. This might be via speed modulation or stopping - depending on how clever the PC program is. Clearly, if some sort of simple block is in operation, then trains cannot enter the block ahead if the preceding train has not cleared it. There is only one pair of lines up to and down from, the scenic section. This will be fed from a separate inner gyrus on the lower level, still with access to the main storage loops, so that trains called-off for the scenic section do not have to cross the main gyrus which runs around the outside, so less conflict and less pointwork. One side of this inner gyrus will have 180-degree loops to the scenic section to ape two-way running, but in reality, all the gyrus lines will run clockwise. This keeps both trackwork and control much simpler, as electrically, there is no reversal. How the DCC will cope with the garden loops I have no idea. I'm working on the presumption that I will need a regular boost-points to keep-up the energy supply. Clearly - this is an issue that others, imbued with greater wisdom than I, will have faced and resolved, as many can be seen running on You Tube, so I am hoping that some kindly souls will remedy my paucity of knowledge. There seem to be many unknowns. For example;- Would a rake of lit coaches noticeably reduce the performance of the loco....? Would this require more closely-spaced boost-points......surely it must.....? Likewise, the use of sound and lights on the loco must use more energy, albeit quite small. I've basically got all the locos I want now, and all the faffing-about with the kits and rebuilds will have to wait until I have got the basic set-up operational. In the meantime, I am setting-about a couple of boards set into a loop to allow setting-up and testing of the fangled electronics. More as and when I get that running....

Overall, it looks pretty good. The perfectionists folks can fix it - if they have the skills. In the real world, 90% of kits that get made don't have anywhere near that level of finish, and many end-up a blobby mess. I've got one on order. If it runs OK, I'll look at titivating it. Still much less work than a kit.

Outer-Space may be infinite - and when it comes to modelling, it seems very much a case of 'much wants more'. I started-off with a very vague, naive idea of making use of perhaps around 10' x 16' - a not inconsiderable space it seemed at the time. To house this, I was going to reconstruct a derelict outbuilding in the front garden. The problem was, that new plans/ideas required it to grow....quite a lot, to the point where it was going to risk plunging my house into the inky darkness of perpetual night.... That is how I ended-up refocussing on rebuilding another derelict building in the back yard where my newly reborn building would only serve to improve the Stygian gloom of what might pass, quite literally, for a scene from a Dickens novel. I have some flexibility available, as the existing run of buildings allow for a depth of around 12' - 15'. The length available is around 40', perhaps 50' at a push. However, I'm obviously unlikely to live long enough to fill that all with a finished detailed railway....well, one has to be realistic....! Thus the eventual size is not yet exactly fixed. I'm trying really hard to devise a plan which distorts 'reality' the least. I've had to make two compromises which will be familiar to all model-railway builders ;- 1) I've had to 'bend' the reality for the diorama, so that it can wind it's way around the building, and 2) I've had to accept some modest foreshortening. In this latter case, all of the stations, loops and sidings will remain to scale in length, but the sections between the Branch stations will be vastly reduced - and 'bent' as required. Needs must. Another issue is the height of the layout relative to the ground-level - and whilst not a unique consideration, it's especially important in my case, since the outside OO lines will head-off down the garden, which has a slope on it. The elevated track must therefore start-out as low as practicable, in order for the lowest part of the garden not to require absurdly tall elevation....and/or an unacceptable gradient to enter the building from the garden. Even allowing for the garden trackwork to be elevated a nominal maximum of around 2' - 3' above ground-level the building will have a floor at ground-level with no step-up. If I have to sink the building partly below ground-level, then we are into serious 'tanking' to keep the water and damp out - and having done some on previous building-projects, I'm none to keen...! At the moment, there seems to be only two options ;- a) Accept the garden section at a considerable elevation, or b) Lower the floor of the new building. The latter works better, but that means building the new structure will involve the aforementioned 'tanking' it to keep the damp out. I've had to use this method of several buildings in the past, and it's a real pain in the Harris. This latter option will also result in a very odd-looking building - unless I just make it into a sort of semi-cellar. Compromise therefore looms. It's clear that some sort of gradient is inevitable. The planned garden route will allow for a 'Licky Incline' of scale length, albeit with a curve at the bottom end to fit it into the garden, so the incline will have a slight 'L'-shape. I think I will have serious problems if this is too steep - and I'm so out of touch that I have little idea as to what is realistic to expect the locos to cope with. The real Lickey Incline, according to Wikipedia, has a gradient of 1:37.7 or 26.5% or 1.52 degrees, and I'm certainly not going to allow my incline to exceed this. The distance of the Lickey Incline is 2 miles, or 138.9' in 4mm scale/1:76. The construction of the garden run shouldn't take long, but it's will be the last element in the greater plan. Plenty of time then, to do some tests to see what locos can actually manage - and retain at least some sort of reserve. I'll not digress here into the area of locos, except to say that from my little tests thus far, some of them would struggle to pull much, even on the level....! Reworking or disposal may be the only option is such cases. I mentioned in my first blog that the layout inside the outbuilding will be split-level. The lower level will be at the entrance/exit level of the garden lines. It is a storage and sorting level. This will connect internally to the main Gyrus and all of the (Many) storage loops. Most of the interior trackwork will be at this level, hidden behind a curtain. Spurring off these loops will be the inclines to, and from, the upper, scenic level. Again - some experimentation will be required to establish a maximum usable gradient, but the internal gradient will not be normally visible and much easier to keep clean than the outside one of course. On the scenic upper level, the OO mainline crosses through the junction with the P4 Branch and is then quadroupled for a distance, allowing the Relief loops to take slower trains and for fast trains to pass in both a northwards and southwards direction as per the real location, although today, at the real location, only the northward loop remains, along with a crossover. If you have been brave enough to follow my inane ramblings thus far, it will be clear that most of the actual track footage will be either on the lower level inside - or externally in the garden. All of this footage is likely to be sourced from the most economical option, Peco Code 100. As well as being cheaper when new, there are vast amounts of this available cheaply secondhand, often unused or in near perfect condition. As I've said before - the scenic OO section (Only.) will be Peco Code 75 Bullhead. This new range is rapidly expanding, and I think Peco are onto a real winner with it, as it fills a real longstanding requirement. I'm very fortunate that this superb product is available right when I need it. From a modelling point of view, the junction will, in essence, consist of an OO mainline, junction and goods yard, with the P4 element of the branch, slicing through and across the OO mainline to it's own separate bay platform with loop etc on the west side of the Junction. The theory is that the different gauges will not be too obvious, and for the most part, the original operation of the main and branch lines can be followed quite happily. Yes it's a compromise, but if opens-up a whole world of usability and effectively 'squares the circle'. I won't reveal the actual location that I'm modelling just yet, as the description of that, it's history, and what still remains, can form another future blog post, but given that I've already stated that the main line was a north-south GWR/LNWR-LMS Joint, some readers will soon figure it out I'm sure...suffice it to say that whilst the Branch was, like many, culled in the 1960's, the main line is still very much alive, and almost all of the buildings at the junction are still intact today, albeit mostly put to different uses. As well as the details and history of the locations modelled, I will bash-out a couple of blogs on locos & stock, and another on the systems and operation. This latter subject is one where I will be coping with the steepest leaning curve, as whilst I know what I want - I have very little idea, thus far as to how to achieve my desired aims...! There is a lot to learn and re-learn... A simple example of my current level of stupefying ignorance is the design of baseboard. I know I need to keep the weight and therefore the size down. However, I also wish to attain quiet-running without the old childhood 'roar' to drown-out the expensive sound-effects. My current thought is 3' x 6' boards, with a 3/4" x 3" frames and topped with 5mm ply. I had been inclining to weatherproof MDF, but then I read a number of comments online about modellers baseboards suffering distortion owing to damp. I think this is unlikely if the quality of the MDF is good, but I'd rather not take the risk. Speaking to some experienced P4 modellers, they seem to favour running their scenic area track on a foam base. I've also gleaned from the web the importance of trying to keep the track sonically insulated from the baseboard. Trackpins seem to be a 'no-no', but then I always used to pull them all out after the glue had dried anyway. Quite how one then fixes the track, keeping it in place - but lightly, I'm presently unclear. What I do remember however, is that granite ballast, after glueing sets like real concrete...! I need to know how to achieve quiet running - but without compromising the scale-like appearance of the track. Yet another steep learning curve for me....and no doubt many idiotic mistakes await me...!

There was certainly plenty of BH with concrete sleepers, but I'd not define it as having been common. For example, whilst BR(W) was busy relaying mainlines in the early 1960's with FB, it was still in short sections and on wooden sleepers. At the same time, some branches were being lifted which had BH on concrete sleepers, such as Kidderminster-Wooferton, which was probably only replaced in the 1950's, so it wasn't down for long when it was decommissioned in the early 1960's.

Thank you for your kind comment. It's all proving to be an interesting mental exercise - even before serious construction has begun....! Still a lot to learn..... :-P

The Accidental Modeller. I only returned to model railways last January (2017), after a hiatus of over forty years…..so, a year on, and before I go further, that probably requires a passing explanation. Back in the late 1960’s I moved from the RTR stuff into what, for that time, was ‘fine-scale’. The old K’s, Wills & Gem kits etc may seem very crude now – but they were all we had, and if you wanted anything outside of a very narrow band of prototypes, unlike today, you had to make it. At the time, I remember a small GWR branch line OO terminus model called ‘Porthleven’, which was featured in ‘Railway Modeller’ in about 1968 I think, and with which I was very taken. I actually found a copy of that issue last year, and it now all looks a bit crude, but P4 was unknown to me, and beyond my ken in those far-off days. I built my own archetypal made-up GWR branch terminus in OO, complete with 009 narrow-gauge feeder. Like you do…. It never had a name, but it all looked pretty enough. However, there were problems…. It had to be mobile, yet it was really waaaay too heavy – way too much timber…and plaster of Paris…! Worst of all, even using a new, at that time, CODAR PCM controller, five-pole motors and flywheels…and building carefully, none of my locos ran as well in reality as they did in my imagination……… The locos stuttered. They jerked. They stopped and started with a violence that would have liquidised the crew and passengers from G-forces in real life…. Added to all that, I had so many other interests, that something had to give……and it had to be the disappointing model railways. I subsequently lived for around twenty years, within earshot of a preserved steam railway – so I never abandoned my fascination with the old railways. Then the worm turned… Last year, having become interested in the history of certain disused rural branch-lines, I thought it might be nice to have a few ‘representative’ items to collect dust on the mantle…..maybe a little tank-engine and a couple of clerestories….. You can probably guess the rest…! At that point, I genuinely had NO intention of taking-up model railways again….. Honest…! Shortly afterwards…. when I realised that I’d acquired rather too much to perch on the mantle…..well, twenty locos was pushing the original concept/excuse rather - I thought, oh well, I could just make a small branch station etc. Just a small simple wee diorama... Ahem… Now, the wiser readers will know what I had, in my dotage, forgotten, - which is that it is truly amazing just how much space you need to replicate a real station, - even a small one - without cheating…. Whilst I was in the process of realising that I didn’t really have space for this project, I settled on two ideas that were basically wholly mutually incompatible….! To wit ;- 1. The branch would be very nice in P4 (Don’t laugh – I had no idea how tricky P4 can be…!). & 2. That I’d like some sort of ‘roundy-roundy’ for the express-trains and long goods etc. These are not normally compatible aspirations. Now, not exactly having my whole life before me, not having unlimited funds, time nor patience, it was clear that some sort of imaginative compromise was required, as there was no way I could create a huge fleet in P4. At the same time, I wanted to run some bulk scale-length trains, which really means RTR in OO. The solution that I have come-up with may not be absolutely unique – I don’t claim it is, - but I have not thus far seen anyone else – possibly foolish enough to try it…. Please let me know if you have...! My Solution ;- When I started buying items, I crossed an important Rubicon when I started acquiring main-line items, as it was clear that none of it would be suitable for a rural branch-line. What I am creating is really two railways that meet in the middle as it were. I will have a main line in OO, so that I can run all the bulk of my RTR OO. This will run through a junction, and will also have access to the garden, so I will be able to run scale length trains at will. The branch is planned to be P4 to satisfy my predilections for scale . The key is, of course, that it’s all the exact same 4mm scale. My plan is that the P4 will chart it’s own path through the junction, retaining the original accurate track plan without any need for deviation, since the branch had it’s own platform. I’ll have to make-up special crossings diamonds, but since these are all curved, I’d have had to do that anyway, even if it was all OO or all P4. Naturally, there will be a few ‘transition-sections’, where trains will not be able to run, but this is an inherent compromise that I have decided to live with. Will it look odd…? Not really – there is no change in scale – only a slight difference in gauge. In the fullness of time – I may regret this, but having drawn some examples out, it’s looking better than I expected – and in the final analysis – it’s only me that it has to satisfy. It may be anathema to some P4 purists, but I think that most will understand that you cannot realistically expect to run P4 outside with it’s microscopic flanges. One of the reasons for the explosion of collected stock was that the main-line junction end of the branch was originally GWR – LNWR Joint, later GWR – LMS Joint. Being very much a GWR blokie, this has required something of a mental readjustment….! An old chap I know who has spent his life working on real trains and is an oracle on any railways history, joked that ‘the LNWR was created just to make the GWR look even better’…! A bit harsh maybe – but I do like the idea of some variety and contrast. The good things then ;- · Variety of branch & main line. · Variety of GWR, LNWR & LMS. · The infrastructure never changed in the timeframe I’m modelling around 1900 – 1947. *** · I have a real place to model and constrain my ambitions. · I’m not really interested in shunting etc. I want the diorama to look like the real place – and the trains to sun smoothly and convincingly to animate it. · In the garden section, here will be no ‘Correct’ – I will be able to keep ANYTHING in the storage sidings to come out and play, even things that would never have run on my scenic section in period… LNER, Southern – simply anything pre ‘47. The bad things ;- · I’m totally out of touch. · I lack my former patience. · DCC is all totally new to me. · I like the new sound facility – but not the cost….. · I have to keep my ambitions within something that is satisfying – yet achievable. · I’m apt to overcomplicate projects. (At least I admit it…!). One of the biggest issues was ‘Where the hell do I stick this thing…?’. My original plan was to rebuild an old outbuilding out in the front yard to look like a signal box. Great idea…but of course, once I realised just how much space I’d need….it’d have hidden my house……! Back to the drawing board then. The next option was to use the upstairs of an adjoining building. The room is pretty big. However, I’d already planned to make this into carpentry workshop…. Even worse, was the fact that to access the garden for the long expresses, would require a large and complex lift system. I started to design it – and then realised that it was a nonsense. Nor was I happy to fill the downstairs workshop with a layout. The solution that I have settled on is to rebuild and extend some old woodsheds at the rear of the house. This will give me the access to the garden when needed and avoid buggering-up my other work areas. OK, after all that agonising, I had a basic plan. One of the other parameters for the project was rather unusual. I want to be able to sit outside in the garden when the weather is nice, and see a whole variety of different trains pass, without the need for an operator. Clearly, this predicates DCC and a PC running some sort of program – and although I know this can be done, in principle, I haven’t the foggiest how to actually do it….! Yet. The layout itself will be on two/three levels. The top layer will be just the scenic shizzle. At the bottom will be an omnidirectional gyrus (Did I really just type that..?). This will serve to allow trains both from the scenic section above, and the garden outside to enter, leave or return, or for ‘shuffling’ to take place. There will be no shunting as such, but all the trains will be ready made-up, sat in a bank of loops. My idea is that it will operate like the music on a smart-phone or PC. Just as you can play the tunes in order – or at random – the PC will be able to call-out trains ‘into play’, then park them and replace them with something different, by a pre-set order, or at random. A set of gradients connect the top scenic-level with the gyrus below, to enable trains to be selected to go above, rather than outside. At the moment, I’m not sure as to the gap between the two main levels. Too big and I’ll create traction problems, too shallow, and I will not have enough room to reach in-between to sort out problems. My guess is 12” – 18”. Oddly enough, all this tends to make for less, rather than more points, and about 90% of the points will be associated with the storage sidings (It’s not really a fiddle-yard as such.). How many storage loops…? As many as I can manage to fit-in…! There will be no points outside whatsoever, and remarkably few on the scenic area. Inside the gyrus on the lower-level will be the banks of trains stored, ready for action, and out of the dust etc. Although the track through the scenic area is just an Up & Down with a branch and small yard, the gyrus below will be four tracks, all going the same way – it’s a sorting system. A clever junction with fly-over sorts traffic to the outside and up to the scenic area into more realistic two-way traffic. This is to represent, outside a four-lane Up & Down fast and Up & Down Relief/Goods. There will be three types of track used. Hidden and outside will be all standard Peco Streamline Code 100. The scenic OO will be the new Peco Code 75 Bullhead, and of course the branch will be custom P4. At the moment, I’m collecting items, probably rather too many, but I can easily thin them out later. Nearly all the OO will be RTR. The P4 will be nearly all kits and scratchbuilds. All the buildings will be scratchbuilt, but, mercifully, they are actually very few, with two stations and four road overbridges. Once the outbuilding is erected, my plan is to make the baseboards in sections. One day I will keel-over, and having seen some very nice layouts ripped to shreds after someone dies or moves, I’d like to give the layout at least a fighting chance of survival. Thus – the ‘standard’ sections will probably be 3’ x 6’. Possibly smaller, as remember they are on two levels. I will make some test-sections and heft them to see if I need to reduce them further to cut weight. I will do the inside layout first, since the garden section is the icing on the cake for me, and a summer-only task. All of the layout will be DCC, and all the OO points and signals DCC too. The P4 section will be manual DCC train, but have manual points and signals by rods and cables, just to keep it more ‘prototypical’ – and because it amuses me…..! Compromise;- Compromise, some say, is odious, however, in modelling, everything is about compromise. Certainly OO is a compromise. It’s really something that should have been dropped years ago, when Hornby Dublo three-rail went out, but here we are, in 2018, still saddled with it. Of course – the manufacturers should have go their act together decades ago to either go HO or to the correct P4 gauge at least. In fact, I read somewhere that during the war – this was agreed, and I’m given to understand that they proposed what was effectively a P4 Coarse and P4 Fine as the way forwards, but like many things, it never happened. What a pity – so we have to live with what we have. One of the subtle precipitants in my return to railway modelling was the most excellent aforementioned Peco Code 75 Bullhead. It really transforms OO, compared with the now very coarse-looking Peco Streamline FB Code 100. True, there is as yet a small availability of points/turnouts, but it’s still a huge leap for OO – and together with some of the excellent modern RTR, gives OO a new lease of life for UK modellers. Hats-off to Peco then. To my great surprise, on my little test section, any and all of my very eclectic collection of locos will run on it, some of which date back to the early 1960’s. Almost all of my nasty tight curves will be hidden out of sight, but in order to shoehorn a real place into the space available, I’ve had to create a plan that ‘bends’ reality. I don’t like doing it, but it’s literally the ONLY way I can fit things in – and I don’t take such compromises lightly either. All the lengths and widths etc will be to correct 4mm scale, so no shortening of sidings, loops or stations etc. *** Operationally, all the OO will be automatic – and the P4 manual. Since the actual infrastructure never changed until the branch was scrapped in the ghastly 1960’s, I can operate several time-periods. I have trains that will represent pre-Great War late Victorian – early Edwardian, then between wars, then lastly, the final period up to Nationalisation. I have also been creating collections of figures and vehicles etc, so that I can have a tray for each period, and swap those details when I run different eras of train. I’m not going to be ultra-slavish about this, but Armstrong 517’s and Metro Tanks with polished brass domes – and 1930’s – ‘40’s vehicles and figures would look really daft – as would a Hawkworth County with Victorian figures and all horse road traffic. If I’m really honest, over the last twelve months some of my tastes have changed. There is WAY more variety of designs and liveries Pre-Grouping, by a huge margin. Added to that, everything was normally kept clean and tidy – so very little need to spoil good models with ‘weathering’. (Someone will make a living in years to come cleaning-up all these ‘Weathered’ models…!). I have to plead almost complete ignorance to DCC, other than having learnt the basic principles. I have been collecting Lenz equipment. My original preference was for the Bachmann infra-red remote system - the display is large and informative. However, I started to see adverse comment on the web with regard to problems of IR range, and, given the type and size I planned, constantly losing connection would have rendered the system useless. Also – since DCC was originated by Lenz, I have presumed that it will offer the best shared compatibility. I have no idea if this theory will be born-out in practice however…! Some have commented that the Lenz hand-controls are a bit dated, but it’s not very relevant for me. None of it is new – but it does seem to be tried and tested. Please bear in mind that I will only be ‘driving’ trains on the smaller P4 branch, and the OO should run off a PC program - that's the theory at any rate...! Sounds;- This is another one of the advances that attracted me back to have another go after so long. It’s not new. In the late 1960’s, a friend lent me an American ‘Big-Boy’ Garret-type loco to play with. This was superb, and had full sound – and it was as good as, if not better than some current UK models I’ve heard. I’m not a diesel fan, but I have to say that the model diesels have been transformed by sound. It works very well for them. I suspect more internal room allows for a bigger speaker – as well as a better resonant-chamber etc. Thus far, apart from some amazing German models, the UK steam locos with sound have left me greatly underwhelmed. Not that I’ve seen that many, but they seem quiet, scratchy and very tinny. To add insult to injury, DCC sound decoders are also insanely expensive. I have about 100 locos, so that equates to about £10,000.00 if I fitted them all with a DCC sound decoder/chip. For £10,000.00, I could hire a coterie of naked ladies to dance around making suitable noises for double the enjoyment and half the price. Ten Grand..? Naaa……some lateral thinking is required I think. (More anon.). As for locos and stock – almost every item is used – some of it very well used. It ranges from ancient Triang to latest Hornby, Dapol, Heljan and Rapido. For the P4, it’s mostly kits. Most are used, that I will convert/rebuild. There wasn’t much choice with some items. For example – I have a collection of relatively rare and poorly made K’s LNWR six-wheeled coaches. I will strip and rebuild and repaint these. It’s fair to say that modern RTR looks better than any kit-built models, with very few exceptions. I have seen a few RTR with new chassis converted to P4 – so that’s another option. I have bought a fair number of old kit locos to ‘process’ in this way – mainly for the P4. To be honest however, I’m not very confident that I can get very close to some of the modern Bachmann….., but if one wants to run a few older Victorian items, it’s pretty-much Hobson’s choice….. So there we have it. A first blog post – ever. I shan’t be blogging very often you may be relieved to hear, but I thought that, for those interested – and masochistic enough to read my verbiage, it’d provide a starting-point to understanding from whence this odd project sprang. It’s all an accident really – and an exercise in pragmatism. I'm still on a very steep learning curve - and will be for some time. Expect me to ask some really dumb questions - for which I'd like to apologise in advance....! If any of you have dabbled in this dark and diabolical mixture of 4mm OO & P4 on the same layout, I’d be very interested to hear about it. Nor do I mind thoughts or comments, whether positive or negative. I hope that you have found the above interesting or at least amusing.

No Decorum;- Thanks for that. I am going down the DCC route, partly because I like the idea of sound, but also because I want to automate part of my layout. The basic DCC chips seem cheap enough, but I'm clearly going to have to ration the sound chips at around a £100 a throw.... :-/ 'Fortunately' I don't think there is enough space in many of my engines for fitting sound....!

Thanks to Sandwich Man for the excellent comparative photos. It's certainly less obvious with the streamlined version. I'm fortunate enough to have plenty of space for my layout, although there are bound to be some tighter radii off-scene & in the fiddle-yard as I'll probably just recycle some used points for that. G-BOAF is right that the gap still shows, but it''s not so glaring a digression on the streamlined version. Thanks also to No Decorum for the helpful comments. Sound is new for me. It's a great idea - but seems rather an anticlimax in practice. (Especially at around £100 each.). I'm not into diesels, except the few pre-war ones, but the sound for diesels in general is brilliant - very impressive in fact, just more 'throaty'. The steam sounds usually seem very tinny and scratchy by comparison - I presume this may be due to the diesels being a better sound box.....and perhaps the smaller space in steam locos restricts the size of speaker... Anyway, they seem all treble and no bass, but perhaps that's my old lug-holes to blame...! Were all the real 1:1 striped coaches special - or did they just stripe some ordinary stock? As a matter of interest - are these models capable of pulling a scale length train.....maybe a dozen - on the level..?

No Decorum;- Many thanks for the detailed reply. After a break of over forty years, thing have changed a bit, so I've been on a steep learning trajectory these past twelve months...! I've been building an inventory, learning...and planning. 1. That was about what I thought, but there is clearly some muddled thinking out there, as there is no logic to blaming the loco for being able to cope with absurdly tight curves. I'd much rather have a properly articulating pony with flanged wheels. Using an unarticulated truck with flangeless wheels is at odds with what appears to me to be huge progress in RTR. 2. My loco says it's made in China. It does have flanges on the centre-drivers, unlike the models of old, but the flange may be a bit smaller. To be honest - it's not terribly noticeable on mine - but we all perceive things individually. BTW - my model has a double-chimney, but one hole is blanked-off. Is this prototypically correct for a Streamliner...? 3. I do intend to use DCC on all locos - although I'm rather dismayed at the extra cost of the sound-enabled decoders. Perhaps the cheaper TTS version will suffice for me. (I have a TTS set-up for my Hornby King, but haven't fitted it yet.). You are right about the drawbars. It's an old chestnut. I've always thought that this should be an adjustable feature. Some of my locos have fall-plates, which is great, but I do think that on some locos the lack of cab doors really detracts. I can understand why they are omitted - but there has to be a simple idiot-proof solution, - sliding, rubber or whatever. After all, they are invariably fitted to models of Tank locos. I'll wait and see what the new loco turns-out like before I decide what to do, but I'll probably keep this one anyway. I'd quite like a 'naked' version, as built as a contrast, partly as I only remember them that way. Earlier in the thread someone posted a black LMS version which I would find very tempting. I'm a GW fan at heart - but I do remember being quite awed at the sight of the Coronations at places the old Birmingham New Street. They looked quite menacing and really huge, but sadly, by then, they were invariably too filthy to see what colour they were... Now I have another related question regarding stock. I know there was a special articulated train, a one-off that went to the states, I'm guessing that isn't available at 4mm. That begs the question - is the correct stock available for the streamliners RTR..? Were all the coached that carried the stripes just standard stock tarted-up, - or were they special..? I'm thinking that I could add the stripes to otherwise standard crimson coaches.... Any input appreciated.

I only got back into model railways a year ago - so I'm very out of touch. I recently acquired a Hornby streamlined City of Birmingham, 6235. It seems very detailed and runs well too. It's the 'Super-detailed' loco-drive version with pick-ups also on the tender & all metal handrails etc, but I'm not sure of the Hornby number. I have some questions for the experts here;- 1. The rear pony-truck is articulated with flanged wheels. Why do they need to be flangeless on the new version...? 2. I see on the Hornby website that they will be releasing new streamlined versions too. What are the issues/problems, scale &/or mechanical, with the old ones like mine...? 3. What are the main advantages of the latest version...? Many Thanks.... :-)

Thanks for posting those lovely images. Very glad I ordered this, it looks really super - and no - I don't begrudge a penny as long as it runs as well as it looks. Hard to easily fault - bearing in mind they still have some tweaks to do. A pet hate of mine is painted 'brass' safety-bonnets, they never look right. At least one can dull-down a plated one. A couple of queries for the experts here;- - Is the wobbliness of the tender coal-rails deliberate/prototypical...? - Are the two tenders shown simply to illustrate a removable coal-load...? - Does anyone know from where they are taking the sounds for the Soundfile...? - Any updates on expected delivery dates...? This looks every inch worth the wait anyway....!

A fascinating thread for me as I'm modelling Tenbury focussed on a similar period.....

Well, if only cabside numbers are an issue, that's nothing. However, if the new 1:1 replica is wrong - for example the main driving wheels - and being followed by Heljan, rather than the real original ones, I'd be very disappointed indeed. One wants a replica - not a replica of a replica. If so - sadly it'll be my first - and last Heljan.

Having returned to this hobby after a very long break, I have acquired quite a few locos, all used or kits of all ages and makes. I have only three new ones on order. The Dapol Railcar - which now seems to have a bit of a cloud over it, this Heljan 4700, and the Rapido Stirling. Having splashed on new locos - I'm rather hoping to be pleasantly surprised....

Do we know what Peco plan to add next....?

Well, I've ordered one. I have, in my dotage, developed a strange predilection for singles. Rather off my parish - and time-frame, but what the hell - who needs an excuse...? Now I need to think about what on EARTH it'll drag around behind it - any advice on the most sensible options appreciated....?

Any news yet as to when these points will be available...?

Looks great - I'll order one.

Ah - that would explain it then...! I saw some mention on the web of it having come-out last year... Let's hope it's worth waiting for... Many Thanks :-)

Hi, I just got back into railway modelling this year after a lay-off of forty-five years - and this is a first post. I had to start again from scratch. I've bought some locos from various brands - but not so far from Heljan. Has anyone done any sort of review of the Heljan 4700 yet - and if so - where can I find it....? Cheers... :-)