Hitchin Junction

On the generic coach subject, I picked up on an earlier comment's reference to the "Broad Church" hobby. I beg to differ. In my experience there are several different railway related hobbies and endeavors, which don't necessarily overlap, that have been lumped together under a "generic name", such as "Model Railways". Usually by commercial interests That explains the continual disparate opinions on so many subjects that occur on this forum. More specialised groups don't have those issues. Tim

The soon to be published "Hattons Illustrated Guide to Pre-grouping 4/6 Wheel Coach Detail Variations" is going to be a huge commercial success. Tim

Slaters 2mm worn stone sheets give a superb effect. Tim

The San Francisco Muni Metro runs underground the whole length of Market Street. Tim

What happened to Moore St.? Tim

What happened to Moore St.? Tim

That's easy. In S4 you can build an absolutely accurate and thus realistic model of a turnout. In P4, you can build one that's almost accurate and difficult to tell apart from the S4 version. And in EM (and 00) you can't build an accurate model one at all, because the flange ways are always too wide. All other differences/compromises follow from the flange way width issue. Tim

When it's primary purpose is to show OTHER people something. Tim

I bought a set of "bow opening" or "reverse pliers" for carefully opening out sideframe gaps, etc., without damage. They open when you squeeze the handles, rather than close. Very much better manual control of the opening pressure. Amazon has them. Regardless, too narrow a BB with no simple and reliable of way adjusting it, sounds like an "unfit for purpose" future major marketing problem. I have a couple reserved, but now I'm thinking about not taking the risk. Why don't these "model" companies do their technical homework? Tim

I think it may have referred to Hornby's "Zero One" original, proprietary, digital control system. Tim

It took a while, but this thought finally welled up into my consciousness. What would the comments on this thread have been like if it was back at the time when the idea of using 16.5 mm instead of 18.8 mm gauge for the then brand new 4mm scale was first proposed? And who looking back, thinks that was the correct decision? Tim

I don't know what point you are trying to make, but I moved to a home when I was 4 years old that had steam powered commuter trans running past the end of the garden every 4 minutes in rush hour. And I thought that was the most exciting and wonderful thing in the whole world. Several years on, I was given a post-war, barely afforded Hornby O tinplate circle of track and a clockwork 0-4-0 plus a couple of 4 wheel coaches. They were a joy, but now much more clearly as a 7 year old, I realised they were not quite like the beasts at the end of the garden. And when I was 10, a desperately wanted electric train set turned up, long after those of my friends, and again a financial compromise, which was a Triang Rovex "continental" freight set, with a Canadian pacific like 4-6-2. Not quite the UK tank loco and several bogie coaches I really hoped for, but then life was still not a bowl of cherries for most of us in the fifties. But by then I was even more aware of the differences. but would have loved the pick of what was commercially available, if my family could have afforded it. Over my teenage years I grew more and more aware of the details of the prototypes and still with very limited pocket money found a used "Princess" body to transform my CP pacific into something more UK appropriate, discovered the (still) wonderful Kitmaster Mk1's and eventually acquired a used Hornby 2-rail 2-6-4 tank, with joy of joys, really moving valve gear as well as just coupling rods. And Triang introduced some "suburban" coaches that actually looked somewhat like the suburbans going past my garden. And by 14, It was time to go from what I called a "train set" oval on an 4 x 8 sheet of floppy "Essex board" to my glorious "model railway", with 7 Peco "Universal" turnouts on fibre sleeper bases on a did-it-myself "L" shaped baseboard around two sides of my bedroom. (But Peco's recommneded "wood fibre insulation board" was a lousy choice). Yet that got me reading modelling magazines and learning all sorts of modelling ideas. And got used to the ideas that (a) if you couldn't afford something, you could often get close enough by making it from a few parts and raw materials and (b) that some key specialised tools that helped make models frequently paid for themselves many times over vs. instead buying the models they produced. And then I became an adult, moved away, acquired adult and family responsibilities and only dabbled in model making without a layout, until the past few years when I fully retired and of course re-entered the careful financial situation of being an UK OAP. If there was a "golden age" of UK RTR model trains, then sorry, I missed it. I also don't have (actually never had) the resources to fit what seems the be the RM Web membership model of rushing out and buying every RTR model (appropriate or otherwise) that the industry can come up with. And if I call my younger and less educated days model railway implementation a "train set", then I'm fully entitled to do so. That's what it was. Tim B

Project Babel: Every conceivable livery offered on a model of something that never actually existed, and eventually never will in model form. AKA Crowd funding. Tim

I suspect the RM Web constituency of more knowledgeable modellers is the wrong place to estimate the market success of these very well detailed "historical" coaches. From my limited sights of seriously modelled pre-grouping layouts, those who build them are really trying to recreate a little bit of history in a museum like way. But from the point of view of finding out and recreating what those times were ACTUALLY like, to experience themselves and to show and educate others. However, since those very few left with actual accurate memories of pre-grouping are at least in their 90's, most work on such layouts involves "younger" folk doing research from photos and drawings. And that research will throw up and expose the mild to seriously irritating historically incorrect discrepancies of generic models every time. That said, the idea of these being hot sellers for attractive historical fiction train sets, for the younger, or less knowledgeable, is right on. Just in the same way that fictionally "expanded" historical novels and TV series are. They recreate an interesting and pleasurable experience that matches the wishful thinking of being back in the "good old days", without the reality downsides. And you can still make use of the chassis Tim

Terrific. Thanks Tim

Or this is good marketing feedback. Tim

I'd be amazed of the same chassis are not common to the entire range. Hence they would need to be produced in larger quantities more or less continually and independently of the bodies anyway. There are only two types that would possibly need retail "safe to handle" boxes. But most likely would they would sold mail order only, in just plastic bags, to modellers and OEM users. Peter's Spares appear to be doing OK with a similar philosophy. Tim

I'm thinking about about acquiring a recent Hornby B1. Is that likely to be tender drive? Or any other bad characteristics I should be aware of? Tim

I could see quite a considerable a market for the chassis without the bodies as bases for home made 3D printed bodies, or special etched sides. That way the "exact" models could be available for those who want to be historically "perfect" or have "unique" models, without the engineering hassle of making precision chassis. Tim

That's a big range of different prototypes all in service at the same time. Thanks for the pictures showing the track as well. Very helpful for modelling. I couldn't tell if the turnouts were single or double point though. Did you happen to notice? Cheers Tim

Coincidentally, my Airfix kit version Deltic just arrived today, but it's only an excuse to work on power truck design ;) Grinding off the raised side striping would be too much work. . . Tim

USA prototype turnouts have always had standardised straight vee crossings that were manufactured off site and dropped into place when the turnout was laid. Even for curved turnouts, where the track went back to curved past the crossing. But curved turnouts are the rare exception in the USA anyway. Tim

All I remember from watching the rush hour batches of the Liverpool St Jazz trains flying by the bottom of my garden, 1950-1960, was that I thought all had round top fireboxes, but the tall straight chimneys were steadily replaced by the squat ones, until at the end, they all had them. I don't recognize the Oxford "hat brim" tall chimney at all.

Peco code 83 follows the USA (NMRA RP12 model version) turnout geometry. All the crossing vee sections are straight and have 1:5, 1;6 1;7 1:8 etc. vee crossing angles of your choice. Not radii. Ditto for all other USA turnout manufacturers. Tim

You might want to check out Central Valley in the USA. They offer a wide range of inexpensive turnouts that are curvable to your own radius requirements. www.cvmw.com. Tim