Regularity

Ah yes. What’s the difference between mashed potatoes and pea soup? Anyone can mash potatoes...

Those Stephen Poole wheels (also available separately) came with longer axles, to suit S gauge. Regardless of that, the aluminium tyres were a disaster regardless of how far apart they were set...

Mind you, better pea green than pee green...

Adams’ pea green?

So, £10 a week. Not very expensive, looked at that way!

‘Lining the switch’ is like ‘throwing the points’, and both relate to the moving blades. Indeed, some British companies used “switch” and others used “points”. A turnout is a combination of points/switches and crossing [vee]. Sometimes this is called a “single lead” in the U.K., especially by permanent way people. Oh yes, permanent way is the same, but whereas we use the term to encompass what it is and its maintenance, in North America they are called Maintenance of Way, or MoW. Turnout numbers refer to the crossing angle. In North America these are frequently cast units including the guard (wing) rails and correctly referred to as frogs. Switches are referred to by their length, just as they used to be over here, but things tend to be more standardised and a 16’6” switch seems quite common. (I am aware that this is a simplification.) Peco code 83 and their new code 70 match American practice, using turnout numbers. The code 100 and code 75 ranges use a constant crossing angle with varying radius (large, medium, small) on the curved road. Although modellers (I suppose I should say “modelers”!) might refer to the radius of a curve, prototype railways use degrees of curvature degrees of curvature, which is the angle subtended by the curve over an American chain, which is 100’, unlike the British chain which is 22 yards (or 66 feet - the distance between cricket stumps). Turnout timbers are also ties, and those either side of the switch rod (stretcher bar) extend some distance, about 8’, beyond the other ties to accommodate the switchstand, which is used to line (or indeed throw) the switch. Because of the distances involved, and the open nature of the landscape, operation outside of densely populated areas tends towards fewer but longer trains. In suburban areas, things are closer to U.K. practice. Understanding this is the key to understanding the differences between European and American practice, and it starts to make more sense. The different requirements and different terminology can lead to confusion, but if you step back, take a breath and spend some time reading up on things, you soon get the hang of it.

Rocket. Do a guick google.

Have you tried canopy glue?

Dunno about “why it won’t work”, but it ain’t gonna win points for looks, either - although it would probably beat the Kruger, but most things would. Who wants to build a castle under a bridge?

A chaldron wagon and a late Victorian NER coal hopper? The latter from a kit, maybe, but the former from some balsa? Major differences in design and capacity, reflecting the change from gravity and horse to iron horse.

It is quite possible that PW’s costs/losses would have been greater if he hadn’t made the range available... But maybe the likely sales had peaked: there was a real thirst for the range when it was introduced, but that will have been sated a while ago, regardless of RTR availability, and supporting such a large range was producing ever decreasing returns.

Just noticed something on an earlier picture, which I have cropped: Now, GCR locos are many things, but they are never dull!

There’s also a locking bar visible, fitted to the outside of the rail.

Richard, If you are interested, there is nice photo of one of these on eBay at the moment, coupled to the driver’s end of a push-pull coach. GCR-SACRE-2-4-0T

I’ve always thought that looks like Spiney Norman:

Board.

The recently departed Charles Vier once commented that the purpose of life was to work out what one’s ideal layout would be, so that on arrival at the pearly gates, St. Peter would click his fingers and there it would be.

The inter-company relationship between the GER and LNWR was, by all accounts, exceptionally good.

Easy way to find out: ask if they have ever tried, and if they have, how quickly they gave up. There is always the risk of what I still think of as the “Tony Wright effect”, where the wrong type of kit is used. Tony likes to build robust models in pretty short order, and is very good at this. By his own admission about 30 years ago when reviewing the Pro-Scale V2 etched kit, something with multiple etched layers and lots of small, fine details is going to take too long for Tony, as he will always be thinking that he could have built several cast metal kits in the same time. There is nothing wrong with that (although I wondered at the time why he had been asked to review it!) but it creates real problems in a limited market. There simply may not be enough “demand” for two versions of the same thing, but conversely, people have different preferences when it comes to levels of detail, complexity of construction, materials used and indeed how the kit was designed in the first place! I got the impression that the JLTRT range managed to get things just right in this respect (albeit at a cost), so it is an even bigger shame that it has gone.

Interesting points. One thing to note is that whilst some designers had clear details which identify them, many didn’t, and some of the smaller (non light) railway companies simply bought off-the-shelf coaches from the various contractors such as the Birmingham and Gloucester RCWs. I have seen small 4 wheel 5 compartment 3rds built for the LTSR which are incredibly similar to coaches which ran on the NBR, M&GN, SMJ and the Isle of Wight Central. There were probably some in Wales, too. So, there are certain companies where you simply can’t copy, but others where you can. I have always thought that the Midland “suburban” low-roof coaches produced by Ratio and Slaters are a great place to start: although Midlan Railway designs, they are less obviously so than many others and they are in fact quite “late-Victorian coachey” but can be cut and shut to create a series of vehicles maybe slightly shorter or slightly longer, have clerestory roofs put on, etc, even cut down to provide 4 and 6 wheel vehicles - maybe put the bogie coacheson Fox pattern bogies to make them look different. This would generate a consistency of style, suggesting one designer, and then you can do something similar with another source to create the changed look that the new Carriage and Wagon Superintendent brought in.

For clarity, it wasn’t my intention to offend anyone, and for any offence taken, I apologise.

Wasn’t aimed at anyone.It was a statement of facts: Railway Modelling requires a combination of time, money and skill. If you haven’t got any of those, you ain’t going to managed to get any done. But I suppose that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so can offence be easily taken.

Shocking.Some engines just don’t know how to conduct themselves...

Why was that?Did they have to stand with their feet apart at different spacings?

What? Pointing out the obvious?