FPH 603

That was basically what I was thinking but with no streamlining.

I would have thought they would have put the loco backwards and make the cab look like that of a class 08.

Sydney Ferries are naming their next ferry 'Ferry McFerry Face'. Stupid, I know, right? That's what happens when a meme obsessed population votes on childish names for something that's supposed to honourary. It is truly revolting! Come up with a proper name, don't let the child's excuse ruin it for everyone.

Well very nice job there, very impressive.

I wonder why these people bother sometimes...

Gosh, I'm confused. What scale is that? That's a lot of fine detailling there.

Any news on 150 001?

This layout looks very good, so much so that I've followed the thread, but I have a question: I'm modelling the North Eastern Region as well on my layout 'Kingsborough'. Could anyone give me any guidance of any particular points I have to consider whilst modelling? (Eg. Specific trains, layout features, etc.) Any help would be appreciated.

The mention of Double Deckers on here goes back at around page 50 - 51... Brings back memories of when I first joined this forum. This was a fictional Double Deck train based on the NSW Double Deck Interurban design - my namesake. That does look pretty good, I've never seen anything quite like that. I've seen various Double Deck designs, some dating back as far as the 1920's! In Australia, (specifically NSW) Double Deckers were first introduced in 1964, and since then almost all trains in NSW are Double Deck, excluding the CountryLink, Hunter Valley and some of the Newcastle and Blue Mountains services. I could go on further but that would take too long to type and this would be going really off topic.

I find with RTR if you're on a budget there are several instances where you need to compromise. I'm building up my stock for my new layout, one train so far I know will be scratchbuilt. The other trains are being trialled for what's available in RTR form and how expensive the model is. I see what I like best than look at the price, and if it's alright, chances are I may buy it. Although I find this is becoming pretty rare as RTR is getting even more expensive. That's why I like scratchbuilding things, whether it's quite literally scratchbuilt or if it's modified from RTR stock. It also gives that satisfaction of 'I made that!' as well.

Looks good, just when wiring you may need to use some isolating joiners at the junctions to avoid shorting out. If you have a look at my blog (see my signature) it shows how to isolate the points. Also try looking at the back of the Peco points packaging (if you are using Peco).

How about a whole bunch of APT promo for to put on the end walls of the compartments and for people to throw away? Screw up the spares and scatter them as model litter. Or maybe the sounds of people quoting 'The APT on platform 1 is fifteen years late!" EDIT: That newspaper posted by Clydebridge a yesterday could be a feature too...

Naughty creepy fake Thomas! EDIT: With that creepy evil smile it looks like he's planning something...

Day out with Thomas... Kids enjoy it but think the trains look damn creepy! Now all you need are red glowing eyes and then you have a nightmare brought to life!

Hmmm, Your layout is only slightly larger than mine, which is a relatively small station terminus branch line station with a platform long enough to fit a three carriage train (excluding any locomotives pulling/pushing the train). I used a three way turnout in my layout for switching into the two platforms of the station, the other going into a very short siding. If you intend on DCC, just keep in mind that you might want to have isolated track joiners in some bits, in case a train derails. This can short out the DCC, and if you have sound, it will stuff up and turn off. Most people get away with this but I think it's worth looking into. See my blog (in my signature) for details and maybe a bit of inspiration. Regarding operation types, this depends on what you're interested in. A shunting puzzle is always a fun thing to make, and solve. I recall seeing a layout which was predominantly a yard, but it had quite a unique feature in it. A 'hump' was made at the start of the yard, where the one line starts and splits in to several sidings. This was made so the wagons could be pushed up, and rolled down into an allocated siding. This takes a lot of experimentation and patience though, but I think it would be well worth it. I'm pretty sure an uncoupling ramp was placed on top of the hump so the wagons can be simply roll down the hill and into a siding. The 'puzzle' aspect of it is switching all those junctions correctly to form the right sort of train. Hope this helps!

Good to see this thread isn't dead, unlike some of the other several hundred I follow!

A lot of place names in Australia are inherited from places in the UK. One common name I'm aware of is Richmond, of which there are 3 places which either have the name or derive from the name. Two in NSW, (Western Sydney and Rural NSW) and another in Victoria, which is more like a suburban city (If that even makes sense!) I'm in the process of naming an entire (fictitious) branch line. So far I've named three, one of which is being built. The point I'm getting at here is some places in Australia are NOT inherited names from the UK, so I'm looking at doing the reverse operation (ie. Inheriting Australian place names for fictitious UK locations). Although you'd still try to be realistic about it! One of the names I came up with used this method.

Agreed, any train from an LMS tank locomotive to an A4 would have to run tender first if there was no nearby turntable.

I quite like using the coach pipe couplings on my Bachmann Mk1 rake. Whilst they are realistic, if you plan on frequently remarshalling your stock, go for Kadees. Don't know what size though, guess it will be a trial and error thing. And yes, making corridor connections out of paper/cardboard will enhance the look of the rolling stock, with ridiculously huge gaps in between the coach corridors. I think that I will also make this part of my stock too. I wouldn't do it on RTR stock permanently, although if you're willing to than go ahead!

I'm also considering using Kadees for my trains on Kingsborough. I guess it comes down to what sort of train your looking at converting (most of mine are DMU's) and how realistic they look, plus how closely coupled you want the carriages (or wagons) together, without derailing them Although some people don't look at realism too much and end up putting Kadees on the front of an LNER class J50. Personally I don't like this as most (if nearly all) steam locomotives never had Buckeye couplings. The different lengths is the thing you have to look for, as you don't want your train derailing, but at the same time you don't want them unrealistically too far apart. You've also got to look at how high the couplers sit and make sure they are consistent, otherwise they are prominent to coming out of place and making your trains roll apart, particularly on hills and gradients. Hope this helps, and I'll be watching this thread too with interest.

I think this should be called 'Hornby's Swindon Models'. How about some Gresley, or anything else?

In the meantime in Western Sydney... Sydney Metro is testing the first Indian built driverless train.

If you read the blog, I've used a three way turnout on the upper level of the layout. Because of this, now I can fit three car trains in both platforms, whereas before I could have two car trains without trapping the train in the curved platform.

Update: Main posts are being moved to my blog (see signature). Whenever I post, I'll just say here I've posted. EDIT: I've revamped the blog so it looks less dull. So please enjoy!

Clive, http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/BREMUDiagramsIssue.pdf Look at page 15 of this diagram shows the trussing, although it doesn't specifically show the equipment, it gives an idea of the base of where the equipment is stored. The video below may help too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3eGYFeW8G8