colin smith

Compared to what Bachmann and Heljan are offering in terms of detail and accuracy I have to say the chassis is a massive disappointment. It looks to be no improvement on an N gauge chassis with a oo9 body kit.

I don't think I was being harsh but I apologise if I came across that way. However, I did misread your question as "what specific features are typical of Welsh narrow gauge practice" which led to the confusion. Your track plan is reminiscent of the arrangements at Llanfair Caerinion on the Welshpool & Llanfair Rly and it's not dissimilar from that at Southwold on the 3' gauge Southwold Rly. However, both of those were mainly passenger/tourist carriers with general goods traffic whereas the Welsh slate carrying railways had a different feel. Specific elements of your plan that, to me, look out of place for a Welsh slate railway are the arrangement of the platform and run round loop with adjacent goods sidings and the parallel tracks. Usually on a Welsh slate railway most of the track would be devoted to marshalling slate wagons into trains. Rhyd by David John is an excellent model of a slate railway terminus that captures the feel of the prototype. https://rhyd.weebly.com/ Finding track plans of prototype locations is difficult online. Believe me, I have tried. There is no online equivalent of the excellent (if not always completely accurate) drawings in the books by J. I. C. Boyd, though those books are still worth finding. However, there is an excellent resource courtesy of the Library of Scotland which has digitised historic Ordnance Survey maps covering most of England, Scotland, and Wales. For example, I've attached a screen shot from a 25" map showing Duffws on the Ffestiniog rly in 1899. You have to do some arithmetic to scale up from the map and of course with any model based on the prototype you have to do a lot of compression. Once familiar with the web site you can search for other possible prototypes to be inspired by. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=52.9952&lon=-3.9356&layers=168&b=1 unfortunately, the 25" series doesn't cover all locations (or all locations haven't been digitised) but it's the best way I know of finding historic track arrangements.

I have to disagree that your plan is similar to Tywyn Wharf. In the 1890s it wasn't a passenger station, had no platform and no run-round loop and has never had an engine shed. I would also suggest that you don't base your model railway on an existing model railway as that makes your model derivative rather than being unique. It also seems odd as The Tarrant Valley Railway is supposedly set in Dorset when you want to model Welsh NG. The only common feature I can think of with Welsh NG practice is that most of the buildings associated with the railways were built of slate. Other than that, oxymoronically, what unites all the Welsh NG railways is that each was very distinctive. Festpedia is a fantastic resource of all things Ffestiniog Rly. This is the page on Duffws station https://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/Duffws The same site also includes Dinas station on the WHR which might be what you're looking for in terms of prototype inspiration. https://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/Dinas_Junction Other than that, I can only suggest doing a bit more prototype research before committing to a plan and would suggest Welsh Narrow gauge railways by JDC Prideaux as a good starting point https://www.amazon.co.uk/Welsh-Narrow-Railway-J-D-C-Prideaux/dp/0715371843.

Your plan doesn't look Welsh NG to me. It looks a lot more like a std gauge terminus. I'd be inclined to take a look at some actual Welsh NG locations as they were in the 1890s and freely adapt from them. Possibly Duffws on the Ffestiniog might be useful inspiration, or perhaps Coed-y-Parc on the Penrhyn Rly, albeit with added passenger facilities.

I would start by deciding what kind of railway you want to model. Is it modern-image, like you can see on the real railways today? Or do you want to model something set in the past, and if so how far back do you want to go? Are you attracted to railways in the UK, or do you like French, German, or US railways? Do you want to do lots of model making, or get something running as quickly as possible? Then have a look at the scales. There's a lot of them and some are much better provided for than others. N gauge will give you more railway in a small space, but can be fiddly to work with. OO or HO is more satisfying but you'll only get a quarter of the same railway that you do in N Gauge. Or what about O Gauge which is much more satisfying in terms of presence but gives you far less railway in the same space as you get in OO gauge. The again, if all you want to do is make models and you're not that interested in running them then you don't need a railway at all. Personally, I think I'd keep it simple. Don't spend a lot of money on it, and regard the project as a learning exercise which you expect to end up giving away or throwing away before embarking on something better where you can apply everything you learned.

Don't know of any DVDs but if you're on Facebook you might find The Secondary Railways of France (Les Chemins de Fer Secondaires Français) group useful.

Assuming you're after a Cornish setting then granite (Penlee Quarry Railway) and slate (Delabole Quarry) are also options.

Not much. There doesn't seem to have been anything wrong with the locos, given one of them worked for many years in Australia. One problem, I believe, is the Hunslets were usually driven and fired by one person while the Baldwins needed a driver and fireman. People on this Facebook group know a lot more than me Narrow Gauge Enthusiasts Group

Mears Junction on the DRGW had a spiral. Lots of images here https://ngtrainpics.photoshelter.com/search?I_DSC=mears+junction&G_ID=G0000SS6fESmevn4&C_ID=C0000Vd2qoA2MbNU&I_DSC_AND=t&_ACT=usrSearch

There was a close prototype. Around 1919 or so The Penrhyn Railway bought 3 war-surplus Baldwin 2-6-2s with the aim of relieving the strain on its 3 mainline Hunslet locos (Blanche and Linda now of the Ffestiniog Railway and Charles now at Penrhyn Castle). Both the quarry end and the harbour end of the Penrhyn railway had many quarry Hunslets so the Baldwins would certainly have worked alongside them, albeit with different duties. Unfortunately, the Baldwins were not a success on the Penrhyn. 2 were scrapped and 1 exported to Australia where it enjoyed a successful and long life. This loco has been brought back to Europe, restored to steam, and now operates in France. So, although no Baldwin 4-6-0 worked alongside quarry Hunslets it is certainly plausible to have them operating together on a freelance layout.

There is an intriguing contradiction between those arguing the Hornby Class 66 is not a threat to Hattons' version because it is insufficiently detailed, etcetera, and those saying people should use their imagination to fill in the blanks.

I'd have thought one use of VR would be to model the parts of "your railway" you don't have the physical space for in 3D. Some model railways are so large or complex they require a team of operators and in US model railroading I've noticed that operators are often given specific tasks relating to real-world railroad practice. Most people in the UK can't build those type of models because we lack the space, but in VR we can. You could even imagine a model railway/railroad that is a combination of 3D modelling and VR operated by a team who are only communicating via the web. It would be a VR version of modular railway modelling but without the need to physically join components together.

That fictitious Lynton & Barnstaple Rly Southern liveried OO9 Baldwin is clever but not quite clever enough. Had this reply on a thread on the NG Enthusiast's Group of facebook. After the grouping, the Southern logically numbered its absorbed locos from the west country at the end of the L&SWR series. The Urie N15s finished at E755. The three Plymouth, Devonport & SW Jcn locos were 756, 757 and 758, while the L&B locos took 759-762. The Southern then carried straight on, with the first of the North British-built 'Scotch Arthurs', Sir Bors de Ganis, taking E763. Lew got E188 to fill the gap had been created by shipping one of the O2s to the Isle of Wight. 190 was another from the batch of O2s that went in 1925, and used by the FR for Lyd. Other O2 gaps to choose from (pre 1926) include 205/6/9/10/11/15. But 763 is just wrong.

I started a thread on the NG enthusiasts facebook group and it seems Bachmann are doing a bit of imagineering. E763 would have followed Lyn, the L&B's Baldwin 2-4-2 which was numbered E762 and 'Sid' is a river in Devon. But I'm unaware the L&B ever looked into buying a War Department Baldwin.

Given the slate built quarry buildings followed a year after the Quarry Hunslet announcement it's not impossible that a range of RNAD buildings will come along in 12 months time.

Those slate built buildings are a joy and obviously intended to go with the Quarry Hunslets. It's one of the harder types of stone to model (pun unintended) as there's no coursing so they'll take a lot of labour out of NG slate railway modelling. Makes a nice change from having to scratch and kit-build absolutely everything, which was the state of British outline OO9 until a few years ago.

I think they're doing a bit of imagineering. E763 would have followed Lyn E762 had the Southern bought another loco rather than (or prior to) building Lew E188. Sid is a small river in east Devon which fits in with the L&B's other loco names.

There are/were kits available for Heljan's L&B 2-6-2 and Bachmann's Baldwin 4-6-0 when they were produced but it hasn't deterred sales. I dare say there are kits available for most new releases in OO as well. Not everyone wants to have to build everything and only a percentage of kit builders produce something as good as an rtr model.

Their choice of prototypes for OO9 continues to intrigue. Unlike Heljan, they're offering locos that would be 'at home' in a broad range of locations and develop suitable rolling stock to accompany the loco's launch.

Just read through the thread and was interested to see the comments on Games Workshop. I'm not au fait with the history of war-gaming but I suspect there was a moment when traditional wargamers replaying Waterloo, Cannae, and Gallipoli were anxious about the declining interest in their hobby only for Games Workshop, etcetera, to come along and save it with battalions of.... orcs. I wonder what the traditional gamers attitude was. I suspect I would have been one of those harrumphing that orcs were beyond the pale, but I can't deny it is the same hobby whether it's Wellington or Saruman leading the troops. What I mean is, perhaps the thing that will increase take-up of model railways is as, apparently, outlandish to us as orcs were to the traditional wargamers.

Totally agree about libraries. Re Games Workshop, I think there is a good point that railway modelling doesn't exist in isolation. There are a lot of hobbies that involve many of the same skills and, to varying degrees, many of the same desired outcomes.

Not necessarily. The idea that one models what one is familiar with didn't apply to me. I have almost no memory of mainline steam and the nearest railway growing up was the very uninspiring 'Hastings Branch'. In fact, I don't think I had much interest in 'modern' railways at all, but rides on The Bluebell, Isle of Man, La Rhune, and Ravenglass and Eskdale were another matter. My own model railway, circa age 11-14 was a sort of BR steam-era branchline but again it was from a time I had no experience of. Then I read Railway Adventure by Tom Rolt and my interest in narrow-gauge began, but even then I was drawn to an era that ended long before I was born.

Surely for those modellers the 'play' value comes from the construction. After all, a watercolourist takes great pleasure from producing their work even though there's not much they can do with the finished painting.

I'm not sure we're going to convince any youngster to take up the hobby if we take the attitude that their current interests are somehow wrong. Fifty years ago if I wanted to revisit D-Day I was rubbing transfers of tanks into a booklet or running around the garden with a cap gun. Today I can be in the landing craft as it hits Omaha Beach complete with full sensory overload and a real chance of getting shot. Okay, the penalty is Game-Over' rather than a War Commission grave but it's a million miles from playing in the back garden. For all the sophistication of today's model railways, we are standing next to them and turning a knob to make them go just as we were fifty years ago. There's no immersive element. I suspect it's hard enough for real life to compete with the experience of 'playing' a computer game, let alone model railways.

Only because variety is the spice of life. I agree trying to join umpteen layouts built by different people would be a major operation and I can't see there would be much gain.