Regularity

Hopefully that’s because when an aeroplane crashes it is a single vehicle but when a railway carriage crashes it is part of a train rather than any inherent lack of crashworthiness within the aviation industry?

You now approach the real reason Bob Essery went to Scale 7. He once told me that when building a Midland Spinner to “0 Fine” - which is closer to scale in many ways than EM is - he was still having to cut holes in the boiler for the driving wheels, and realised that only by adopting S7 standards could he avoid this.I have often thought that this is the most eloquent argument for “Proto” standards: fewer compromises - it is possible and necessary to still make some adjustments as you can’t scale physical laws (a fact Geoff Holt forgot when building a Johnson 4-4-0 for Dewsbury) and you can’t run round dinner plates for the most part, either, but forget all the hype. If you need to cut holes in the boiler due to your track and wheel standards, then maybe you need to reconsider things a bit?

New England street running using an early CF7, to please Jordan, but also to show that it doesn’t have to be grassy. In fact, you could simply model the street and a runout, moving the tank cars from one off scene road to another, and having the loco coming back on its own.

Simple and effective, but slightly spoilt by racial and class segregation. Yes, I have been misinformed!Ta.

I think someone is simply telling porkies...

No, but you have seen everything I have seen! To which I can add the following: The auger is scratch built: Track is Peco “83 Line”, painted as follows:

Some photos from Facebook: the layout is still under construction, but if it operates as well as it looks, it must already be a stunner. I love the way that exit stage left is disguised with nothing more than greenery.

With a single power unit, they would be restricted to maybe 90/95mph, I think, but the bigger question is how do you get around the forthcoming legislative requirements for accessibility, which are driving the removal from service of Britain’s, and the world’s, best DMU?They could have used mk3 DVTs with shortform HST sets to create some comfortable long distance/cross country trains, otherwise: power car, 3 x TSO, buffet/restaurant TF, DVT.

Must admit that I am non too keen on the chaos that is Facebook, but it is much easier to post pictures than on forums, and there are some useful groups on there. One of them is on H0 shelf layouts, so you may wish to have a look. I pinched this layout plan from there, to give you an idea: Also worth checking out Ryan Mendell’s Algonquin Railway, http://algonquinrailway.blogspot.co.uk

But thankfully, they soon saw sense on the LNWR... What doesn’t it look good on?

If you are a livestock farmer, animals are a commodity and there is no room for sentimentality but always time for good husbandry. I was fortunate enough to know one set of great-grandparents (born in 1890!) and until I was was 5 or 6, Gramps kept pigs for the sole purpose of eventually eating them. Although born and bred a townie, we always lived on the edge of town and my mother’s upbringing in a village during the 40s and 50s has meant that, thankfully, I have a desire that animals do not suffer but no squeamishness about their ultimate fate. No, not dying, but becoming food. Oh, and clothing.

Any details/link?

That smokebox door kind of suits it. Always nice to be reminded that the GWR had at least two decent locos...

I wasn’t sure what you were referring to: your comment was somewhat apropos nothing without a quote. But no. They didn’t have any DX goods on the M&M. They were Webb 17” coal engines, not DX goods - smaller wheels, smaller splashers, closed splashers (unlike the DX which had an open-fronted crankpin splasher) and unlike the Cauliflower but like the DX goods, a straight footplate. Also, like only a small number of DX goods and unlike all Cauliflowers, they all had cast iron H-spoke wheel centres. I could maybe understand someone thinking a DX or especially a Webb rebuilt SDX looks a bit like a Dean 2301 goods engine in original round-topped firebox guise, but not a coal engine. They had proper plates on the LNWR. In historical order: DX goods. Coal engine. Special DX (rebuild). Cauliflower.

I was aware of that, but most of these are fun what-ifs with an historical focus. Currently we seem to be focused on solving a major, current, problem: lack of capacity on the commuter lines due to physical restrictions (platform length, loading gauge)

I think that if this was a truly viable solution for British railways, we would have seen it implemented by now. You are discovering all the reasons why it hasn’t happened.

?

As so much is...

At the bottom of the page, you can chose to switch to the web version, and then you can do these sorts of things. IMO the “phone version” of the software is much more limited than it needs to be, but there’s not a lot anyone can do about it.

There were, and are (but not as many as once), plenty of short lines in New England. You can always model a short industrial facility - yet again, look at Jack Hill’s website: http://oscalewcor.blogspot.co.uk Do you have any particular type of traffic, type of car, or era in mind? Tom Nelligan’s book sets the scene for the 70s (https://www.amazon.com/New-England-Shortlines-Railroad-Heritage/dp/093158406X), it’s a lovely book but might be too early for you? I gave yet to acquire the Morning Sun book: https://morningsunbooks.com/products/new-england-shortlines-in-color Also, have a look at the mostly steam website: https://sites.google.com/site/newenglandshortlines/

According to Jenkinson, the LMS wasn’t any better.

There’s always Brassmasters. They work well. http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/cleminson_underframe.htm

You need some form of guide for the central unit, to stop it twisting.

Your curves are of reasonable radius, and you are working in 00 gauge, so you can if you wish fudge things a bit by building 4-wheelers using the outer axles, and for centre wheels, filing the pin points off and putting the axle in a tube, lightly sprung to keep it on the track but not carry any noticeable weight.