Regularity

Second sentence from the OP says it all for me: What happened to actually modelling the trains, rather than simply creating a setting for ready-made purchases?

Sorry, a bit late to this one... No, it won't help. It only reduces the total mass of the flywheel. It reduces the amount of energy stored slightly, but not enough to make any significant difference. In a large flywheel it saves a lot of metal and reduces the "dead load" on the bearings, but in in a model it's a waste of potentially useful adhesive weight. Andy Andy’s point should be more widely known.I did write a brief piece for MRJ some years back (when they still had a permanent editor!) but the then incumbent list the piece. It is true that, for a given diameter, a “hollow” flywheel will outperform a solid one, but only if their mass is identical. So, unless when boring out that 6mm hole the brass was not removed but pushed into the rest of the metal (in which case a Nobel Prize probably awaits the manufacturer!) boring out the flywheel does indeed concentrate the remaining mass towards the rim, but unfortunately at the expense of reducing the available mass. It is possible to work out the effective average radius from the centre of the flywheel to the effective centre of the rotating mass, and to compare these two with the resulting mass. There is no situation where boring out the mass is beneficial to the momentum of the flywheel. But A level physics is nearly 35 years behind me, and having done it once, I have no wish to do it again - besides, if you have the mathematical/physics knowledge to understand the calculations, you know this to be true. And if you don’t know this to be true, the maths might frighten you away! More practically, about 20 years ago I had a small 0-4-0 loco frame under construction, which was driven by a proper (round) 1620 Mashima motor through a DJH 53:1 two stage gearbox. I set up a length of track with an insulating gap partway along, and simply applied 12V and let it go. I tried it without a flywheel, with a “hollowed out” flywheel, and with a solid one. They were the same length (10mm) and the same diameter (20mm - a bit big, maybe) with 10mm bored out of the “hollow” flywheel for about 8mm. The results were interesting! 1, no flywheel. The frames went a lot faster - very little inertia to overcome - but also stopped quickly after the gap, with negligible overrun. 2, hollow flywheel. The motor took longer to get to full speed at full volts, and indeed was a touch slower, but was smoother and had (from distant memory) a couple of inches more overrun. 3, solid flywheel. Overcoming the rotational inertia of a directly mounted flywheel which is of greater diameter of such a small can motor was possibly a bit unfair, and this setup never acquired the same speed as the “naked” version, but it was the smoothest running of the lot. It also overran by 50% more than a hollow flywheel. I remember the 50% more than I remember the actual distances. Having subsequently done the calculations, I should not have been surprised. Quite the best solution! Fitting a flywheel should make for smoother running, removing some jerkiness resulting from less than absolutely perfect track and such things as wiper pick-ups. Only at high speed will you gain any noticeable momentum, and the aim should not be to glide over dead frogs or similar, just to smooth things out when the voltage supply gets low. Even with feedback controllers, if the current us interrupted then the motor stops turning. Conversely, it is possible for a flywheel to unbalance the motor and make things very much worse - for example, you can mount a flywheel which is perfectly balanced onto a shaft which has slight bend in it. In such cases, bin the motor. However, since I am in the process of moving away from DC, then some of the reasons for this will disappear. My intention was to go towards DCC, which has 3 distinct advantages: 1) with its constant supply voltage, issues relating to low voltage over the rails go away; 2) feedback control is from the decoder directly to the motor, and not determined via a long route of copper wire, nickel silver rails, wheel to rail contact and wheel to pickup contact; 3) the adding of energy storage capacitors, even small ones, means that if the supply is interrupted by a speck of dirt, there is no problem. Given a good motor and a decent gearbox, I am not sure if a flywheel is warranted - but I have them already fitted so they shall remain! That said, I am moving towards on-board battery power, with direct (wireless) control. I am working through lots of permutations at the moment re charging the batteries (via rail, via sockets, even via induction loops) but that is by the by: anyone who has seen a small, light, 4 wheeled loco moving under battery power (whatever the control system) is immediately impressed by the uncanny smoothness that an uninterruptible power supply creates. It is almost eerie. So, to answer your original question, David, if working in DC I would not consider going without a flywheel, and would fit a solid one, preferably 10mm long and to about the same diameter as the “round” dimension of the motor, so for a 1420 flat can that would be 16mm. If that were not possible, I would fit the largest I could get in, sacrificing length before I sacrificed diameter, and going down a step in motor size rather than not having a flywheel at all. If working in DCC or on-board battery power, I would still want a flywheel, but if push came to shove, would be prepared to go without. As an aside... The equal-smoothest running engine I have ever had, the one which set the standard for me, was a Triang-Hornby Ivatt class 2, with an XO4 motor and 20:1 gears with a double-start brass worm. Work that one out! Always liked that motor, but it was a bit bulky and there wasn’t much room for a flywheel. They stopped using them because one of the two armature winding machines they had broke down, and in the cash-strapped 70s they couldn’t - or wouldn’t - buy a new one, so started to outsource the supply of motors. They couldn’t make enough motors in-house, but also weren’t able to spend the money on a new machine. First the dreadfully implemented “ring-field” came along (it could be a good motor, if properly engineered), then those tiny slotcar motors, etc. Triang, when it was the world’s largest toy maker, was like the LNWR: it outsourced as little as possible, although it didn’t make its own bricks or steel. When you outsource, you lose the inherent “ownership” of the production - it’s just stuff for someone else - and no amount of quality control checking will make up for that. Plus, you have to take into account the supplier’s need to make a profit. Anyway, rambling aside, I hope that helps. PS If anyone wants an original, tested-only Dynadrive clutch to fit onto a 2mm shaft, send me a PM and I will see how much you are prepared to be extorted.

So, other than being a tank engine and not in service, the 415 fits the criteria?

Did you seriously expect otherwise, Jim?

He has just, or is just, starting out on the circuit.Abbey Street will be at the London Festival of Railway Modelling.

Looks good. Don’t worry about it being overscale: it will help define the shadows, a bit like having embossed brickwork when if you scaled it out, it would be all but flat. Besides, you can always gradually refine things each time you build a new one.

It is now permanently ensconced in his loft, but he had a new layout...I have had the joy of operating it a few times: great fun, although as it was at exhibitions we weren’t using the waybills, as they take up too much time and we wanted to keep trains running. Jas follows North American model railroad activities and developments, incidentally.

To be honest, I suspect it would have been jointly operated by the LSWR and the LBSCR, with the wheeler-dealer ousted by them. But that’s not the point, is it? You are assuming that the wheeler-dealer managed to successfully play one board off against the other, so it holds water on that basis.But what I think is irrelevant: do you find it substantial enough to support your ideas? The test is in how robust the main plot is: you could happily twiddle with the details till the cows come home, just so long as the big picture stays the same. Anyway, I thought you modelled diesels?

Brilliant townscape, and then snaptrack... Oh dear.

Yes.Jas Millham has been doing this on his Yaxbury Branch in S Scale for over 40 years.

Sounds a bit like he was confused over the meaning of “underground”...

With locos and stock, you have four basic paths to choose from: 1) own company designs (and builds some of) its own. All you need to do here is change things slightly, for example maybe Fred Russell didn’t go on to become General Manager of the GER, but went to become CME of your chosen company; 2) buy off the shelf from outside contractors, most of whom had a range of Standard Designs, especially for engines. A great example is the range of 2-4-0s, 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s supplied to, amongst others, the Furness and Cambrian. You could add to these the standard wagons and coaches of, say, the BRCW; 3) buy second hand: the world’s your oyster; 4) a joint line, for example after a period of option (2), the SDJR had Derby engines and Nine Elms/Eastleigh coaches. Obviously things get mixed about, and a common path might be 3-2-1. The key to a fictional company, as with any good novel or play, is to create a convincing back story, which means reading up a bit on other lines of a similar size, and to progress on that basis. Obvious examples are the Furness and the Cambrian, but there are also other companies such as the North Staffs, the Maryport and Carlisle and the MSWJR.

But he would gave understood “autumnal”... About 20 years ago, when I smoked, I mentioned I was just popping out for a fag to a visiting American colleague, to the expected guffaws of, “We would never put it like that!” I asked what he would say, and was astonished by his reply of, “Well I guess I would say I was going to suck on a butt.” After a brief pause, I asked why that phrase was OK as an alternative, to general hilarity in the office? Talking of which, I do wish they would understand the difference between alternate (every other) and alternative (one other)...

It is always a difficult question. I was tempted to say, “Since you are asking, it obviously bothers you so the answer is to do it.” But then I realised I could also say, “Since you are asking, you obviously cannot tell them apart so the answer is not to bother.” I managed, in the words of Hull’s finest songsmith, to see both sides of both sides... ultimately these are questions of personal thresholds. At least your question had a definite focus: I’ve seen plenty of people ask for layout plans without any idea of what they actually want to achieve, other than a vague sense of location and era...

I think the after looks slightly better, and suggest you do it that way in future. Not sure if it is a big enough difference to show under a coat of paint, but if it was me, I know I would regret not bringing the other side up to the same standard at some point in the future. You really don’t want to be reworking it once the Model us painted and “finished”.If you are the kind of person who doesn’t get irked by this, then don’t bother, but if you are...

Am I alone if seeing the irony in that?

Consist and make-up are not grammatically incorrect: they have become nouns in their own right. A desire not to use them is a different matter, based upon personal tastes and period accuracy. The point of language is to communicate: good grammar makes this clearer and more elegant, and to the educated avoids confusion. E.g. their: “belonging to them”; they’re: short for “they are”; there: a place, “not here”. These are homophones, so in speech there is no clear distinction. Also: would’ve, short for “would have”, and not “would of”. When Terry Pratchet was using the latter, it was only in reported speech and was used to show that someone was poorly educated, or possibly a bit thick. These are not homophones: “would’ve” is more like “wood-uvv”. Similarly, our (belong to us) as in our house: not “are house”, which is meaningless, but I hear people with PhDs and indeed BBC reporters saying the latter. These aren’t homophones, either.

I caught a bus the other day. It took me to the road station.

How low exactly do you think that was?They were often fitted with screw link couplings, to reduce injuries to the cattle - for which the railway was liable - but as a through freight not needing to stop, it could get up to a reasonable speed, say 30 something miles an hour. Interesting question about changing the wagons at a watering stop. I suspect not - the wagons need to be shunted and swapped, paperwork transferred and the fresh wagons need to have been cleaned in advance, which is an extra cost for the supplying company. But I suspect not. Does anyone know?

A coupé is usually a “half” compartment at the end of a coach, with outward facing windows, is it not?E.g. Looks to be a lavatory compartment, but the window needs frosting. I think these may have had corridors (but not gangways) arranged such that each class could access one lavatory, with each corridor being slightly less than half a coach length, arranged diagonally opposite. Or possibly, only the compartments adjacent had access to the loos?

It looks like a Cowan 4-4-0 from the GNoSR, which IIRC had 5’ drivers.

Quality materials, like quality tools, repay the initial cost many times over once you start working with them.

I just found the Evergreen range to have a nice finish to the surface, sheets are square, and the edges of the strip sections are square and don't curl up. And dimensions are consistent, too.

Ah yes. Been there with that one...

Any idea how they compare to Paul Chetter’s work?