009 micro modeller

I’m not sure how this would work, given that the loco is not permanently coupled to the transporter (in the final layout there should be 5 of them being shunted). Also, I’m not sure why power via the loco should necessarily be more reliable than the transporter picking up from its own wheels on either DC or DCC - they’re both ultimately dependent on wheel contact after all, it’s just whether it’s the loco’s wheels or the transporter’s wheels. If it’s because I can’t build it properly then perhaps using an ex-loco bogie under the transporter would help (I’m now wondering about something like a Tomix Portram chassis with the motor taken out - they are inside framed as well). Probably not specifically relevant here but the loco is currently powered by overhead wire (returning through both rails), leaving the transporter clear to pick up using a 2-rail system (only in the appropriate section, which is wired for 2-rail). Exactly, it’s only when the wagon is stationary and in a very specific place on the layout (the end of one siding). Being 009 it doesn’t have side buffers but the more common narrow gauge centre buffer/coupling arrangement (also dictated by the type of couplings generally used in 009). However, that doesn’t necessarily stop me from using a similar system, as the end of the wagon does still need to be shoved into the dock by the narrow gauge loco to ensure there isn’t a big physical gap during unloading, and I have seen someone use it before for this purpose (supplying power to the rails on a transporter). Again though I’m not convinced that supplying via the end of the transporter will inherently be any more reliable than via the wheels. The main issue is basically that any kind of rocking motion or unevenness in the wagon, however slight and seemingly imperceptible, interrupts the current flow enough to stop power getting to the rails on top. Would it not be possible to do this underneath the wagon as well, if supplying via the rails? On the other hand I’m somewhat reluctant to introduce any kind of very strong magnet into this situation (electro or permanent) because of any possible unintended effects on the motors in the standard gauge wagons being carried (I’m less worried about the uncoupling magnets elsewhere on the layout, which obviously will be weaker and only in contact momentarily). I do like the idea of magnets though as they’d probably improve the ability to hold the transporter in place as well as the power/pick up issues.

Agreed. Especially when it’s something where they’ll have planned the route, risk assessed etc. to prevent anything really important from going wrong. I always thought ‘Train Truckers’ was an oddly specific subject anyway. Now that I think about it, ‘The Tube’ didn’t really have too much false jeopardy (but it was originally from 2003). I can vaguely remember a segment where new staff were learning how to safely cross a live track electrified on the LU 4-rail system - even that wasn’t especially overhyped. I’ve only watched the first episode of the current Channel 5 Tube documentary but that mostly seemed OK as well - perhaps it’s only when there isn’t really ‘enough’ genuine jeopardy that they feel the need to manufacture some.

The other issue I would have with fly on the wall documentaries is that even the really good ones (I liked the old ITV/Sky series ‘The Tube’ about the London Underground) seem to rely on some element of things appearing to go wrong or being a bit chaotic. Which is fair enough as the programme makers need a way to drive the narrative and add interest, but from a PR point of view, with something like a heritage railway or a relatively small museum I would be concerned about the risk of it (perhaps unfairly) overemphasising the more dysfunctional aspects of the organisation.

Intelligence but also I think empathy/understanding in some cases. Interestingly in the heritage sector now (in a wide sense, probably less applicable to heritage railways) the state of the job market and recruitment processes is such that those of us who are fairly early career have to work up through volunteering, then paid front of house and entry level roles and have a degree (or two), rather than entering with either experience or qualifications as in some sectors. But I do hope that one positive outcome of this will be that in 10-20 years time there might be a generation of managers who have worked in various different heritage sector roles, rather than getting into it via a rather generic private sector/corporate or charity management background.

Exactly. Even if the original comment wasn’t meant in an offensive way (and I genuinely don’t think it was) the phrasing does have that unfortunate implication, which as a neurodivergent person I dislike. It’s 2024 and it’s Autism Awareness Acceptance Month, we can and should do better.

I did wonder if the bit in bold was sort of the point, i.e. as a scheme to encourage more visits/participation from the local community. Which is something I’d agree with in principle, I just don’t really think this is the right way to implement it because of the other issues it creates, as you’ve already covered (unpredictable loss of revenue and perception of worse value for those who aren’t local). I sort of see what you mean, however the model of a heritage visitor attraction ultimately run by a charity, operated by paid staff but generally with some level of volunteer support as well, is very common (pretty much ubiquitous in fact) in the wider heritage/museum sector. There’s nothing particular in the nature of a heritage railway that makes it obviously and inherently less suited to such a structure. Historically heritage railways have tended to be more volunteer-led and managed, more so than other types of heritage organisation (though there are various independent museums that are similarly volunteer-led) but it doesn’t follow that they necessarily have to be. For example, in both of the museums I currently work in we have volunteers, but usually in supporting roles with core roles performed by paid staff. I was going to say the volunteers don’t make decisions about the direction of the organisation etc., but actually there are opportunities for both volunteers and paid staff to feed back to managers about what we do and ideas for how to do better (as I think there should be, in a well-run organisation) - however, it’s not in the formal way that would take place in a membership organisation with an elected board etc. And I was a museum volunteer elsewhere previously so I do see that side as well. In terms of the future direction and what organisational structures are used I know there are a few lines that are already commercial/for-profit without a heritage focus or charitable structure, though I’m not sure I can see others converting to this structure (even if only out of self-interest, in the sense that doing so would deprive them of funding sources that are only available to charities or to the heritage sector). I do think the idea of a charity running several lines might work though (and I’d much prefer this to the blatantly commercial option), probably not on the scale of something like the National Trust but more in the way that the Jorvik Group runs several sites within York in addition to Jorvik itself, or the multiple Science Museum Group sites around the UK. The basic issue of disconnect between management and front line staff and lack of appreciation for those who actually have to interact with the public/volunteers/whoever and implement whatever policy has been decreed exists in plenty of places, including elsewhere in (non-railway) heritage and charity organisations. It’s slightly different when volunteers are involved but applies in plenty of situations where there are only/mostly paid staff.

I’m currently doing a project in 009 with working transporter wagons - it has a build thread here but has stagnated a bit. It’s all a bit convoluted but essentially it relies on the transporter wagons picking up power from the 009 track, which is then routed through them to the 00 gauge wagons on top. Despite my best efforts the pick-up for this isn’t working very reliably, and in any case at the moment it’s leading me into building a ludicrously long and mostly rigid 8-wheeled vehicle, which isn’t especially sensible anyway. However, there are other contexts in which people build unpowered rolling stock (or bogies on powered vehicles) that are required to pick up power from the track (track-powered coach lighting, pony trucks on steam locos, the unpowered bogie on a bogie diesel etc.). The difference is that my vehicles will only have to pick up when stationary. Is there anything proprietary or in kit form that might be suitable to adapt or use, perhaps something intended for N gauge? I’m not really bothered if the final transporter design is 4-wheeled or on 2 bogies. Ideally the chassis would end up being fairly heavy and inside-framed, but it doesn’t absolutely have to be at this stage.

I’m currently building some wagons for a project in 009 and hoping to use B&B couplings for this, on the basis that in theory they offer smooth, delayed uncoupling without the ‘shuffle’ needed for Kadees and others. They’re also similar in to the commonly used Bemo-type loop couplers which I’ve previously used, but with the addition of the hinged delay latch which facilitates the delayed uncoupling. They can be quite fiddly and difficult to make reliable though, and I suspect a lot of this is to do with the need to bend up the coupling exactly to the right shape from the etch. Would it be possible to instead take a proprietary 009 coupling of the appropriate type (Bemo, Peco etc.) and fit a delay latch to it? I’ve seen this done previously with a static wire fitted for use with Greenwich couplings, but this similarly requires shuffle. I haven’t previously seen anyone attempt to replicate the moving delay latch as used on B&B couplings.

A quick question in case anyone who’s been reading this topic has any opinions on it - could I alternatively attempt to solve the issues mentioned above by having a compensated chassis for the transporter? I’m not sure how I might do this, especially given that it is inside-framed and not particularly heavy when the standard gauge wagon is not on board.

I agree, perhaps with the exception of something like the Steam Elephant at Beamish, apparently based largely on a painting of such a loco and involving some experimentation to understand how it was actually built - other than that the fact that all of railway history is fairly recent, in the grand scheme of things. I think there’s also a replica early waggonway (even earlier than their Pockerley one) being constructed at Beamish that probably falls more in that category than conventional railway preservation. In this context though I wouldn’t necessarily read as much into the word ‘experimental’ as I would usually - when it’s in a public museum (rather than academic research) context, it seems to be more about demonstrating how people lived as a way to educate visitors about it. I was generally just trying to head off the argument that (paraphrasing) ‘heritage railways are “playing trains” and there isn’t much historical/educational value to that’, which is the opposite extreme from ‘everything should always be restored to working order, regardless of the historical value of retaining it in it’s current condition’.

Yes. I wasn’t particularly thinking of any attempt to scam the buyer, but situations where they just attempt to avoid paying EBay fees (though I’m not sure you get these back by removing an already listed item so that’s possibly not what I was thinking of either).

I had to use Western Union once (my debit card was either lost or had had the details stolen/scammed so I’d cancelled it, and later had to ask a family member to send me some cash until the new card came). The amusing thing was that, even though I was using the service in a completely legitimate way, the need to go to a random corner shop and then upstairs to a nondescript room where they handled their Western Union business still made it feel slightly dodgy. I’m sure I read somewhere a few years ago about sellers removing stuff from EBay (ending the listing) and selling for cash to local buyers who had messaged them, or something similar, for similar reasons. I suppose for an in-person exchange you could take a photo of yourself handing over the cash in exchange for the items, though I’m not sure this would satisfy EBay etc. if there was a fraudulent complaint. As a bit of a historical aside, before pre-paid postage was introduced (so pre-1840), letters were paid for depending on the number of sheets of paper, which meant they often had to be inspected by holding the envelope up to the light to count the sheets (known as ‘candling’). As the clerks employed to do this were quite badly paid, you can imagine what might have happened to any money being sent in letters inspected by the less honest ones. I was once sent a model railway exhibition plaque through the post (they were made after the show so not given out on the day). The envelope came but there was no plaque - perhaps not coincidentally it had not been packed especially well and would have had the same feel, size and shape as a bank card. I would agree with others who’ve generally advised to avoid cash for distance buying/selling online, or at least to do it in a way that’s traceable to avoid the issues mentioned (fraudulent complaints and similar). Can you send a cheque? Though I’m not sure how traceable that would be from an online selling perspective.

Thinking again about the effect of the weights on the transporter wagon issues and how they helped with the tipping up problem, it’s all to do with moments around a pivot point (in this case the axles are the pivots). I could actually weigh the standard gauge wagon and other various things and calculate the moments properly, but given how things have gone it’s perhaps best to eliminate them entirely and thus get rid of the see-saw effect that is causing most of the electrical pickup issues. I’ll explain what I’m thinking with the help of a couple of previous photos from this thread, suitably edited: Cutting along the red lines would remove a short section from the end of the standard gauge rail at each end, as well as some of the supporting structure. To maintain the structural integrity more styrene could be added in the middle and elsewhere. Meanwhile, turning the wagon over, the wheels would move to the very end of the brass subframes, shown in blue. The styrene strip round them would have been removed as above. The result would be a transporter with a wheelbase of about 58mm (it’s about 32.5mm currently) but a standard gauge track length on the deck of only about 50mm (it’s currently about 76mm). The original concept was to have a transporter wheelbase similar to that of the standard gauge wagons, as I’d assumed that this would work best for weight distribution etc. when the transporter was moving. However, so far this hasn’t seemed to be a particular issue, whereas loading has. It should be more stable during loading than the current configuration because the standard gauge track would be entirely within the transporter’s wheelbase (the loading dock track would need to be extended out to meet it, but that’s not a problem). The standard gauge wagon as motorised with the Locosnstuff bogie is now pretty controllable, unlike the earlier iterations, so the shorter track length to pull up in once on the transporter shouldn’t be an issue (especially as I will be fitting some sort of chock/buffer arrangement eventually). If it does turn out to be a problem I can always build longer transporters - the main point is the different relationship between the wheelbase and length of track on the deck. Edit: I suppose the issue with this idea is whether anyone thinks I might have problems with the standard gauge wagon not being supported (almost) directly under its own axles? I’m not hugely concerned about the scale 14’ 6” wheelbase of the transporter that would result - it’s almost absurdly long for a narrow gauge vehicle but, by using long vehicles and a minimum radius of 18” (i.e. larger than the 15” radius that might be used for a scale 15’ wheelbase wagon in 00) I’m at this stage effectively building a standard gauge 00 layout on which most of the track happens to be 7.5mm narrower. There isn’t quite the same space saving that I’d expect from a more conventional 009 layout, but I always knew that would be the case.

Essentially that’s what my styrene guide beams are doing (I’m hoping to have 2 separate bits on each side at either end of where the wagon goes on the final version, if possible - it’ll still be a bit clunky but rather less obtrusive than the current continuous beams and probably less friction for the loco to push against when propelling the transporter into place). On my model, the idea is that you don’t directly stop the transporter wagon tipping up, but instead achieve that effect by using the guide beam to stop the opposite end from tipping down. Presumably this applies on the prototype you mentioned above as well? It’s therefore a bit odd that I should need any weight or guide pressing down as well, as in theory this shouldn’t be necessary. I have a feeling that it may just be that, as it’s only a test piece on a random (unframed, probably slightly warped) plank of wood, with the standard gauge section built up from odd bits of card and MDF, so nothing is quite as straight, level and well-built as it might initially appear. In which case, the solution seems to be to get on with building the proper layout, on a proper (level, braced) baseboard, and do the loading dock more precisely and with better materials, but I’m reluctant to start doing this when I’m still concerned that I might be unwittingly building some fundamental flaws into the final design. The original plan was to build a few more transporters and standard gauge wagons first anyway, so that I could use them to test couplings and check siding lengths when building the final layout. The issue with this is that it seems that for my purposes it needs to be so exact that the transporter actually skims the top as it runs over them - too low and the blocks/beams are not effective, too high and they force the transporter’s wheels off the track. One reason for the electric loco is simply because I like quirky old electric trains, especially narrow gauge (and there have been more NG electric operations than people generally realise). The other reason though is to do with the transporters, because they pick up their power through the narrow gauge track. Powering the narrow gauge loco from the OLE (with return through both rails) allows the transporters to pick up power in a conventional 2-rail way, without causing problems when the loaded transporters run elsewhere on the layout. However, this also means that the wheels all need to stay in contact with the track when loading the standard gauge wagon. Even though I thought it was fine, there seems to be a tiny imperfection in one of the beams which is causing the transporter to sometimes tip imperceptibly and break the circuit. I suppose one idea would be to compensate or spring the transporter wheels (if that would help), but I’ve never built a compensated chassis before, it might introduce other issues and a tiny-wheeled, inside-bearing 009 chassis probably isn’t the easiest thing to do it on. In terms of prototype I’d considered that but it’s a bit narrow to have been a UK town tramway (it’ll be 2’ 6” rather than 3’ 6” - obviously 009 is exactly 2’ 3” but I’m going with 2’ 6” as the established smallest gauge for transporters). I’m thinking it’ll probably be more rural and more like a slightly more modern (1900-1910 built, but set in the 1950s) and electrified version of the Glyn Valley or Alford and Sutton lines, electrification justified either by mineral traffic or the availability of hydroelectric power (or both). There’ll probably be a bit of influence from the Belgian Vicinal system and others as well. Interestingly though, the Leek & Manifold (among other British NG ‘common carrier’ lines, including Rheidol) did briefly consider electric traction but didn’t go through with it.

And I may have fixed my own problem (well it needs a bit of work but you hopefully get the idea). Please ignore (if you can) the fact that it’s a weight from a Triang clockwork loco, sitting on a postage stamp to insulate it from the metal rails (!). The point is that by applying weight to the end of the transporter it seems to have fixed it. The far end (relative to the standard gauge track on the berth/dock) no longer lifts as the SG wagon embarks, as the weight is enough to keep it down. The near end shouldn’t suffer the same issue as eventually the plan is for all the transporters to be single-ended, with some kind of improvised stop block to prevent the standard gauge wagons over-running the middle, so all I need is something heavy to function as a stop block (not too heavy though - I don’t want the transporters to tip up on end when empty and I’m not sure the NG loco would like it very much either). The other consideration is that at the near end the wagon still has one wheelset on the dock, so this is less of a problem since it has pickup and drive on all wheels.

I wired up the test rig for the standard gauge wagon to run a few months ago and got everything out again today for a little test run. I’m still having a slight issue with the transporter tipping up slightly at the ends, causing the wheels to lose contact and therefore causing the standard gauge wagon to stall as it drives on and off. It seems incredibly sensitive to this. This is despite the guide beams being so high and close to the bottom of the transporter that the friction is a bit difficult for the NG electric loco when the transporter is loaded (it’s OK when empty as the transporter itself isn’t very heavy). Originally I thought it might be the guide beams themselves pushing the transporter too high and off the track, but I’ve largely fixed this now and it seems mainly to be that any slight imperfection in the beams causes the transporter to lift/move under the SG wagon’s weight, causing it to momentarily lose contact. Does anyone have any ideas for solutions? I’m thinking about some kind of guide above the transporter as well as below, but not sure of the best way to do this. Ideally I’d have less guiding pieces rather than more, to try and make it less obtrusive. I’ve thought of moving the wheels closer to the ends to reduce the moment around the axle when the standard gauge wagon pushes down, but that affects how the transporter can be constructed and whether I can fit couplings to it.

The SDR confirm on their own social media that it was.

Really interesting and good to see the photos. While I have more experience with the 11-103 and 104 and their successors, rather than the bogie version, I’ve sometimes found that Kato chassis are actually better without too much extra weight in order not to overload them. Though not sure if the extra weight might help them run slower, which actually would be useful for a lot of my Kato-powered locos.

Exactly what I thought they reminded me of. 1949 stock I think? The power car on its own looks a tiny bit like one of the ‘heritage-bodied’ Parry designs from a few years ago, while in general the 1950s road coach styling is reminiscent of the Bridgnorth Castle Hill (funicular) Railway car bodies.* On that theme, perhaps you could now build some loco-hauled stock in a similar style with other bus bodies? It all looks very good so far. *Edit: these are similarly made ‘in the style of’ bus bodies by a coach builder, I think on the frames of the previous cars, rather than being made from old buses.

Going back to the original post I’m not sure why the YouTube video describes itself as being in Honduras.

I’m modelling a freelance transporter wagon operation at the moment (this thread - on a bit of a hiatus as work, life, and preparing other layouts for an exhibition is getting in the way, but still an ongoing project). There are a few challenges with getting the transporter wagons to work (depending on what kind of operation you want and what method you use) but it’s going reasonably well so far. My transporter wagon layout will also use motorised wagons. For the Fry’s operation I mentioned above I wonder if the best way is actually to have a partially rigid tow cable, with the wagon being motorised and pushing an unpowered NG loco. This hopefully mitigates one of the main concerns I would have with modelling that set-up (other than the complete inability to uncouple remotely), which is the small NG Lister loco not being strong enough to haul the wagons, or the strangely-angled forces exerted causing the loco and/or the wagon to derail.

Sounds interesting, though I’m not sure how well that would work on a model, compared with mixed gauge track (though I think the locos for that line are/were available in kit form in 009). In a similar vein, there was another location where the 2ft gauge internal system had no wagons at all, but a Lister loco was used to haul standard gauge coal wagons. I’ll need to check the reference in the Bradford Barton industrial narrow gauge book when I get home, but a quick Google suggests this was J. S. Fry at Somerdale. Again though, this used a cable with the loco running on a parallel track rather than dual gauge track (I’m not sure why but I imagine it would permit a simplified track layout - the loco would be able to go back past the wagon without the use of points for instance). This would similarly be difficult to model, unless you either used manual uncoupling for the cable or did a very simple layout with the loco and wagon simply passing through the scene and the cable attachment taking place off-scene. In this case I’m not sure why a standard gauge loco wasn’t used, possibly there was a weight restriction.

That looks a fairly complicated arrangement. Is this really an easier option than using a small standard gauge loco in this instance?

I’m reminded a bit of object handling and the objects used for it. Most handling objects are either duplicates of something in the ‘main’ collection, or replicas. The replicas might be used where the original object is either very old and valuable and/or fragile, or where original objects are unsafe for the public to handle, as with some objects that contain asbestos. But going back to the ones that are real but duplicates, the general idea is that a genuine artefact (where available and safe to use for object handling) is preferable to a replica. There’s always some risk that they will be damaged during an object handling session, and it’s obviously a higher risk than for stuff that’s just locked in a case and very occasionally handled by collections staff. But where there is another example preserved in the main collection (often in better condition) it doesn’t matter so much if the handling object is at risk of damage. Obviously this isn’t a completely transferable point because it would require that locomotives that are unique survivors are not steamed and have replicas of them built instead, or that there were two examples preserved (one static, one operational), which clearly isn’t feasible. I don’t think it applies directly to large buildings (like National Trust properties) either, but the point when I mentioned Clandon Park was about whether there is much value in creating a pastiche of what was there previously, especially when by doing so you pass up the chance to show the underlying construction of the building. To bring it back on topic it might apply to Kettering Furnaces No. 3, which I gather is currently in a very original condition. You can also preserve original material that is replaced rather than just throwing it away.

Of course, but it doesn’t mean that ‘no wider context whatsoever’ should be the default position. On the other hand you could argue that having an entirely grey, small-scale diorama is less effective in terms of emphasising the humanity of the victims than a colour one would be. I take the point though about using a colour that’s seen as more ‘neutral’ for the whole thing in the absence of other information, though I’d be surprised if things like building colours cannot be estimated from remaining structures or other nearby buildings.