hartleymartin

I wish that 85A models still produced the Hunslet.

You could try for a sentinel or another small diesel using a Bachmann On30 Streetcar power truck fitted with standard-gauge axles. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75055-near-enough-o-scale-sydney-trams/?p=1144330 Frankly, I am surprised that there have not been more O scale motorisations of the Vulcan 2-4-0, as the kit has been around since the 1960s or 1970s. You may find that the Linberg Models 1/48 scale San Francisco Cable Car kit has useful components with which to make coaches or tram engines. I've chopped a couple into a Sydney D class tram.

I think a lot of people "trade up" from OO scale. One of the reasons I decided to move into O scale 10 years ago (just after I finished high school) was because I had been reading a number of articles from Railway modeller which talked about failing eye sight and O scale being less fiddly. I figured that it wasn't worth building a huge collection of HO/OO or N gauge only to trade up years from now. I have variously looked into O-16.5/On30 and O standard gauge, and even flirted with O-24.5/O-21 at times. I recently acquired a Hudswell Clarke on ebay (only slightly cheaper than retail) and I also acquired a Tower Models barclay from a deceased estate for less than the cost of the unbuilt kit. I promptly pulled it apart and have set about modifying and changing several things. The most drastic was when the razor saw came out and it went from an enclosed cab to an open-backed cab! The Hudswell Clarke is going through several modifications too. Another member of this forum kindly turned some 16" buffers for me and the saddle tank has had a sanding block taken to it in an attempt to smooth out the tank profile. It's due for a trip to the paint shops for a respray in matt black and some numbers. I've also got some kit-bashed models which will eventually be Sydney C and D class trams, with a possible future F class and G class on the workshop roster.

Well, you've been able to get O scale set-track for a while, but you had to buy code 148 american from Atlas.

With set-track curves available at a reasonable price, I think that we're going to see a lot more O gauge layouts that follow the classic "Started with a trainset loop of track and it expanded from there" scenario. The Hudswell Clarke, and Fowler from Ixion and the Terrier from Dapol, as well as several different companies selling RTR wagons might be just enough to get people started. After getting the RTR stuff running, I think people will attempt kits to expand their collection (after all, who wants to have all the same RTR stuff as someone else?)

How high/low does the body sit? Are the buffer beams at the right height? It looks like it could do with packing up by about 1 or 2mm

Let us consider your typical single-car garage. The internal dimensions vary from about 17' x 9' to 22' x 12'. (My own measures 17'8" x 9'8" or about 212" x 116") With the 40.5" curve, I can get a 180-degree curve into the garage and still have some 17.5" clearance between the track centre-line and the wall on each side. This means that the last section of the curves could have the peco curved points (122"/68" radius) to form one end of a run-around loop. I will then have some 14 feet from the end of the curved section of track (which includes one half of the run-around loop) If I have the buffer stops up against the wall, I can probably get an 8 or 9-foot run-around loop. Not bad ey? Even with a clear 6-foot run-around loop. This would be about 12 x 4-wheel goods wagons and brake van. If you are only operating smaller locomotives (I've got mostly 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 tank locomotives) then a 40" curve shouldn't be a problem. if you use flexible track to transition from the set-track radius back out to the straight you can get reliable running shunting with buffered vehicles.

3.75mm sounds like Cod 143/148 Peco would have a virtual monopoly if they released a Code 124 bullhead version.

Tight curves look bad when viewed from the outside of the curves. Tight curves were especially abhorred by people building exhibition layouts. With a little extra slack in the couplings, there is no reason that one cannot successfully operate tight curves on a home layout, especially when you consider that you are viewing the trains from the INSIDE of the curve and the tightness of the curve is far less apparent. One only needs to remember to transition and elevate curves on running lines. The elevation doesn't need to be more than about 2mm in O scale. If you do it gradually, going in 0.5mm increments, the elevation of curves can be very successful and realistic. if you still have trouble when running trains on the curves, consider a continuous check-rail. They were used on the prototype. At the moment I am doing some experiments producing grooved rail by using code 100 rail on its side butted up to the web of another piece of rail. The resulting groove is about 1.5mm wide, so would require the gauge to be narrowed to 31.5mm for it to work best. If you want slightly wider grooves, I think that Code 125 rail used similarly would be the best bet. Oh, and apparently Lenz do a R-T-R 3-way point! If these can be obtained at a reasonable price, I see no reason why these should not be popular with O gauge modellers. They would be especially handy for shunting layouts! (Heck, I would love one for an inglenook that I want to build!

Considering that it would be 100 pounds just for a circle of track, I'm guessing that it's going to be a rather expensive train-set. probably loco 2x wagons and a brake van of some sort. I agree that Peco should produce a 3-way point. There is lots of demand for them! What (nominal) radius would the "small" points have? Same as the curved set-track?

The only other option for people running 3-rail or coarse scale stuff is the Atlas 3-rail stuff. I reckon that Peco are just trying to ensure that that keep a certain market share. However, I think that their O-16.5 track could benefit from having points the same geometry as their set-track range. There are a lot of narrow-gauge modellers out there who would buy them.

I found it to be much the same when I hand-built track for a layout some years ago (60-odd yards of it!) At the end of the day, the big savings were made on building points, not plain track. But it did mean that we were able to have Code 100 track for O scale standard gauge and made to represent the desired prototype.

Would you ever consider modelling a wagon with a 'live charge' to explode or at least "go pop!"?

Are there similar building kits in O scale? I would like to build a mill/factory of some sort, but the thought of acres of brick-paper/brick plastikard is putting me off.

I don't know if it was done in England, but it was quite common in Australia for a spare sleeper or a 9' length of 12"x12" timber to be placed across the rails and then using fish-plates clamp them down to the rail-heads using long bolts.

Thanks - It is a little more difficult for me, being in Sydney, Australia to get access to one of these for measurement. Just to give you an idea, there are two "Hibberd Planet" locomotives in preservation. One is a 5-hour drive out west and the other is an 8-hour drive north of where I live. I don't think any of the Ruston 44/48 or 48DS made it into preservation here.

Where did you get the drawings for this model? I've been interested in one for a while, but have been waiting for Karlgarin models for years and I'm starting to think that this would make a good scratch-build project.

Have you seen this webpage? http://www.miac.org.uk/bournville2.htm Take a look at Hudswell No. 14. If you squint, it kind of looks like the Ixion Fowler that is coming out. A couple of the Cadbury vans look a lot like X-framed vans that you can get from slaters, and in one background picture there is even an open truck lettered as "Cadbury Bournville"

I submitted something to Carl Arendt's website back in 2009. Although I designed it as a T-gauge super-minimum space layout. http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page82/#carlingford

Use isopropol alcohol mixed with dry lock lubricant (graphite powder) and a syringe to pump small amounts of the mix into the bearings. THese days when I assemble wagons I rub a 6B pencil on the ends of the axles. Wagons never need any other lubrication after that.

Oh how I would love to get my hands on the 85A model hunslet!

Much neater than anything I have ever produced. *edit* That's the last time I try to post anything on this forum using Google Chrome on my Mobile Phone!

Could you re-orient the layout so that the dead-end is in the top-left corner? You might be able to get a few more inches of length in that way. Otherwise, you might be able to put some sort of small industrial yard in that space and have a wayside halt along the top wall before it goes into the tunnel, disappearing to the fiddle yard.

Check your inbox regarding the buffers.

How far would the block protrude into the cab? One might be able to get away with it if you don't put in a detailed backhead, and you can obscure it with driver and fireman figurines in the cab doorways. Not up to the usual Ixion standard, I know, but still possible for someone who desperately wanted the side-tank locomotive. I'm going to pester Peter Berg and see if I can get reject castings from his NSWGR R285/Z18 class locomotive (boiler, smokebox, chimney, dome, etc) so as to make up PWD 27/28.