DK123GWR

31 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

What makes anyone think that the proper names of rail vehicles are general knowledge?

 

On RMWeb, yes, but on the Clapham Omnibus?

I'd always assumed that the general public would refer to wagons as 'trucks' due to the influence of Thomas The Tank Engine. It may not be the usual term, but it would be much better that 'carriages' as it at least makes a distinction between passenger and freight vehicles.

18 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Ah yes the latest youth fashion or so the media would have us believe that punctuation actually offends the sensibilities of a certain section of society for whom the medium of text snapchat and social media in general now defines their written communication and as a result they perceive use of commas full stops and other basic grammatical conventions as a form of microaggression and need to take refuge in a safe space it would appear that even capitalization is abandoned in most cases and elsewhere individual lttrs r omited bcz ty r rgrdd as xtranus spcly 4 sum rsn the vwls dat gt spcly ruf tretmnt 1 wndrs sumtmz wer dis guna end 

I was just thinking about the rather interesting transcription of 'another beautiful Hattons tank engine'.

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Using the 1987 figures for calculations involving 2 axle vehicles the permitted axleloads in (long) tons were as follows-

 

RA 1 axleload 13 tons or less,

RA 2 axleload  over 13 tons up to 15 tons,

RA 3 axleload over 15 tons up to 16 tons

RA4  axleload over 16 tons up to 17 tons

 

But note the calculation for bogie vehicles produced slightly different results and these figures are based on calvculating from wagons and not necessarilyon the Civil Engineer's specified figures.

The RA3 boundary seems to match up reasonably well to the Wikipedia article (quoted there as 16.5 tons).

24 minutes ago, Chrisr40 said:

Infantile of me I know but I do giggle when the you tube subtitles come up on his videos (which are well made) and it says Sam Strains

I've seen much worse...

Watch the first 15 seconds with subtitles on.

On the subject of Sam's Trains, I think that he deserves a lot of credit for building a successful channel that does something a little different to most of the media in the hobby. His layout is clearly a 'trainset' rather than a model of a particular location and while others may focus on modelling techniques and other useful skills (for me Everard Junction would be an example of somebody who does this excellently) Sam's Trains captures the joy of running trains incredibly well. That joy of watching the trains was what drew me into modelling in the first place (although I was never a big internet user when I was younger and have only started watching youtube videos over the past couple of years), and I am now preparing to explore beyond bare track on a bit of wood. I can't help but think that Sam's Trains is able to spread this feeling to people who (unlike me) did not discover it after being given their parent or grandparent's old trains to play with and that some of them will be drawn into the hobby following a similar path to me.

3 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Its a disgrace closing power stations just because of the outcry by those who think they know better ,we will need them as the population grows .Doubtless they will build houses on the site and further increase the demand for electricity ,even gas is on the anti,s list so when will they decide that green will be no good.

Even if it were impossible to replace coal (and eventually all fossil fuels) in electricity generation I think that rationing electricity consumption would be a price worth paying for not wrecking the planet (even more). I do agree that at least one coal power station should be preserved as a museum - they are very impressive structures.

To get back to the thread's subject, Combe Down Tunnel would be great if it weren't for the music and coloured lights through the central section. For that reason, I would have to choose the disused parts of Chippenham station (a former loading bay in the goods yard and the weighbridge) and Black Dog Halt (the most prominent structure remaining from the Calne branch). I often try to imagine a train travelling down the line as when cycling along it.

24 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

couplings aren’t compatible

I wouldn't have thought that's important as, so far as I can remember, they are all MUs.

 Does anybody know the maximum axle loading for these? The wikipedia article  is incomplete.

Thanks in advance.

5 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks,

 

I am bemused by this thread, what is wrong with second hand stuff ?

 

I got into the hobby by being given almost exclusively second hand stuff from the age of three starting with a Hornby Dublo Caledonian Set 2023 that had previously belonged to my cousin. My first new locomotive was for Christmas 1974, it was a Hornby Triang R751 D6830 which was, despite sporting class 31 bogies (GRRR !), the nearest thing to a class 40 that was then available. Even at the age of four I knew that I wanted a class 40 with thirteen Mk1's that I could exchange for an electric locomotive at Preston. That became the OO gauge reality with a second hand Trix AL1 a couple of years later, I would have preferred a class 86 but that was seven years into the future.

 

Small 0-4-0 tank engines with bright green Prime Pork vans were of no interest to me, I wanted Freightliners, BOC Oxygen tankers, 21 ton hopper wagons, blue and grey coaches and BRCW DMU's.

 

I still buy second hand stuff, mainly from eBay, although I usually either repaint or kit bash it into something I want. Eight out of nine wrecked Airfix Mk2d's are currently being rejuvenated as a WCML Pullman set, even if the job were to go horribly wrong, which it won't, it will only stand me £15.00 including postage. What better way for a beginner to learn than chopping up and repainting stuff that can't really be made much worse ? Dapol still manufacture the range of wagons first produced by Airfix, they even do self assembly coaches which are even easier.

 

Gibbo.

I agree with you to an extent. I try to keep an eye on both ebay and Hattons if possible. The trouble is that for the first few locomotives you want to know that it will work straight away and for a long time. An absolute beginner may struggle to navigate the various models that have been produced of locomotive X and which ones have a cripping flaw which stops them from running. Of course, modern locomotives aren't immune to such flaws either (but they really should be).

4 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

It's my view that Railroad should provide appropriate locos and stock for someone to be able to put together a branch local, a goods train, and a passenger express for each of the Big Four, BR pre and post 68. and post privatisation.

I would suggest that there should be at least two sets of passenger trains at a time covering different areas of the country. Even then, they should be periodically rotated so that you cover for instance: GWR HST and Sprinter; TfW Sprinter; Northern Pacer or Sprinter; Scotrail HST and Sprinter; East Midlands Railway HST and Sprinter over the course of a few years. I have tried to stick to current and former Railroad models for this list, but as we discussed a few pages back it might be a good idea for Hornby to produce a low-spec AT300 model to replace the HST as they are getting everywhere (at that point some of the TOCs mentioned would have to change of course - TPE and LNER AT300s could replace EMR HSTs and supplement the Northern Trains model).

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

The pannier, Jinty and 08(*) all crop up regularly in the Railroad range (but IMO should be there permanently as 'bread and butter' locos)

As well as liking the idea of the heritage railway sets, I think this is a good idea. It would give people a number of options for a starter loco using a chassis which has stood the test of time (no traction tyres spinning in mid air while the loco slides around) but is larger than the 0-4-0 (which also means more reliable pickup due to the longer wheelbase). I have an 08 and a pannier and while their not the most accurate models I really don't care. They both compensate for their lack of detail by running smoothly and reliably on trackwork which, if I'm being honest, is mediocre at best and uses track which in some cases could date back to the 1980s. In the interest of balance, Thomas (who likely took much more abuse from a seven year old version of me than the class 08) has had his gears worn down completely. The motor turns freely but has no way of connecting to the rails.

11 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

Crosti 9F (I'm sure it's a nice model - but only 6? built and nobody under 50 will have seen one!)

Any 9F is impressive for its sheer size of course.

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

What about something like this?

 

• The FY is on the left, Viewed from the bottom, platform and station building at the top.
• Two Streamline Large Y turnouts and a Streamline Small radius.
• Run round completed in the FY. Might just handle two Mk1s...?
• Continuous curve on the platform until it reaches the loco release siding (and you could curve that too if you really wanted!)
• Cattle dock off run round loop.
• Goods siding at front.

Its a nice design and it could certainly be made to look natural more easily than my original plan. However, one aspect that I didn't mention at first (but should have done) was my desire to build as much as possible using spare track and rolling stock. As I have no Streamline points, it doesn't really acheive that.

10 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I wonder whether the (perhaps excessive) focus on the 00 train set market by some people is because that is how they got into the hobby, and they can’t imagine other people getting into it via a different route.

I can imagine people getting into it via a different route. Thinking about people I know at school, there are probably quite a few who would be more interested in soming in and building/painting models straight away (hence my support for your idea of a range of entry-level kits). Another group of people who could be lured in are the computer builders. There are all sorts of amazing things that they could do with DCC but I would imagine that even on DC they could exercise their brains quite well - creating proper block signalling systems or even something like this (demonstrated here).

However, there will still be some who get into it via the traditional route: an interest in either Thomas or the real prototype which grows into more. For this, we do need some sort of market for RTR standard gauge trains. These are the kind that most children will be familiar with as they include the trains that go past their house every day, and the famous locomotives of the past (Flying Scotsman, Mallard, and others*). Whether this is in 00 or N gauge is another matter. My instinct is that 00 would be most successful as it is what parents/grandparents are most likely to be familar with and it may be less frustrating for the youngest modellers, although if somebody could successfully launch a cheap, mass produced N gauge starter set to rival Hornby's this would of course give people the option of a bigger (in scale terms) layout.

*I can never quite believe that nobody produced an RTR City of Truro before Bachmann. I have also wondered whether it is worth an RTR manufacturer producing basic models which most people in an area would be familiar with (near Swindon this could have been Hagley Hall in the past, and subsequently Hinton Manor and Ditcheat Manor) and selling them to local model shops. You could then point out to the customers (including children) that this is the same locomotive that they see (in the case of Swindon) every time the go to the Outlet Village. Whether this would work as well in locations where you have to actively travel to a museum or heritage railway to see a locomotive (as opposed to walking past them while shopping in the factory that built them) is probably a key weakness of the plan.

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

If the lower grey block is the platform, it needs to be redrawn next to the track 

That's the sam platform as the first diagram, but I couldn't be bothered to redraw it.

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 The Qunister's kickback semi hidden headshunt enables goods shunting to take place at the same time as the passenger trains are arriving, departing, or setting back

I don't think there is much need for this as it is only a short single line, so I doubt there would be more than one loco present at any time.

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Might I suggest a 22 as motive power, not much longer than a 350hp shunting engine...

You might, but I have a 350hp shunter in an odd livery which runs well. After considering it in the past, I decided that I would not like to learn how to paint using this loco. By contrast, a very quick search yielded no class 22s available for under £50. Any that were under £100 were likely to rise due to being ebay auctions in progress. As a result, it may be very inconvenient to listen.

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Goods facilities need a loading dock, an end loading dock, and a mileage road

I'll see if I can incorporatre it. One option would be to replace the cattle dock with the mileage road (or move the loading dock to the cattle dock and the mileage road to the loading dock).

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

What form of fiddle yard are you planning?

Something like this. but the lengths of the tracks are not exact as I would determine what is required through experimentation.

51 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

If you omitted the turnout that opens the run round loop and took both sides of the loop off-scene you'd have room for your Mk1s. (Use the FY to complete run round moves.)

That might give you a bit of leeway to have the track(s) enter the scene more centrally, which would help with the realism.

You could also give the platform a gentle curve to maximise the length and give the scene a more dynamic feel.

 

Like this? I'm not sure whether the FY would fit under that arranngement and I am becoming increasingly confident that a pair of Mk1s will fit in the platform while a loco runs round under the current plans.

4 hours ago, Chimer said:

I wouldn't curve the "cattle dock" siding, especially if you're using tension lock couplings which need a straight bit of track for the uncoupling ramp, and the curve would make loading beasts (or anything really) a bit more difficult.

I'll have a closer look at possibilities for that siding when I have the track and some wagons ready to experiment with. I am using tension locks (though so far I have always used the 'hand/magnet of god' rather than dedicated uncouplers. I might investigate that option now that you've mentioned it, but it wasn't a consideration when creating the initial design.

4 hours ago, Chimer said:

I take it you can't give up the empty triangle bottom left to the domestic authority, in exchange for more useful space elsewhere?

You are correct.

4 hours ago, Chimer said:

Finally, putting my ex-naval hat on, I can't think of any less economical vessel...

I rather suspected that this may be the case.

3 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Personally I would cut and shut set track points going for a 45mm track spacing and squeeze an extra siding in, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone less versed in bodgery than myself.

I am no expert on Aircraft carriers but wasn't indefat one of the two "Double Decker" carriers with low roofed, 14ft high hangers which would have been too low when track and Railway stock was loaded.

Wikipedia confirms this to be the case - you might squeeze some smaller stock in if you're careful but I agree it wouldn't be that useful. I am certainly not ready to cut up points!

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi DK, I like the idea of the backstory - plenty of scope even for a small layout.  I was just wondering if your operating position is above (or "North") of the layout or below ("South") as I think that could have quite a difference?  Personally, I wouldn't want to be reaching across the open, scenic area for every uncoupling manoeuvre if I could avoid it - I'd be forever knocking off chimney pots and leaning on the scenery.

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

Could you flip this to put the platform at the back?  As it is, the platform and any station buildings will tend to hide both the trains and the sidings and you'll always be reaching over to operate.  What sort of fiddling space do you have?

It was going to be operated from the bottom but you both make good points and I have also realised an issue with the fiddle yard location, so I will probably rotate the plan 180 degrees.

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I think your platform length should be OK for a two coach train - but if you can check the clearances before fixing down your track it might be really helpful (I speak from experience).  The run round track of 232mm should also be OK for the locos you mention, but if there's room to leave a few extra mm for any future purchases that might be wise - there are several different types of buffer stop available that may also add (or deduct) a few vital mm.

I think the coaches should fit from trials I have done in the past with similar lengths but I will of course check this. I planned to use a bufferstop which would not take up any track - the standard Hornby one is certainly off the table.

3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Finally, another good thing about this track plan is that placing the platform at an angle not only gives you a bit more space but also avoids the tight "S" curves that come with crossovers using Setrack points: the only change I'd make is the one @Chimer has suggested of straightening the short goods siding to make coupling easier.  Keith.

While I've not designed a trackplan that I've really intended to build before (train-set style excluded) I have certainly read enough threads on here where the suggestion has been "try and do x to eliminate that S curve" that it was at the front of my mind to avoid one if possible (the space also helped with this).

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

Perhaps a couple of Bachmann 57' Mk1 non gangwayed carriages would be better? Or even bits of DMU, so long as they're the short-frame type - Class 101, 108 or 110 are fine.  DMU driving trailers have been operated as observation cars. 

I had considered 57' stock but I will have a go with standard Mk1s first. Shorter coaches remains a backup option, but likely a more expensive one. I could always use my single Stanier 57' (I think this was bought for the previous Hornby Hogwarts Castle to haul, but it definitely has LMS branding on) or my Collett Suburban (courtesy of the Virtual Exhibition's spot the difference contest) as a stopgap measure until I can find something more suitable if the Mk1s are too long.

55 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

I would add another siding into the goods yard from a point in the loop, maybe running parallel to the top siding.  You could then shunt three sidings.

A nice idea in theory to increase the number of possible manouvres, but I do wonder if it would make the layout too crowded. Having fewer sidings would probably also increase the difficulty of some tasks, making it more interesting. It would be difficult to add a third siding without an S bend too.

24 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Perhaps it could fold to fit into a case that would go on public transport.

I'm imagining a wooden case around 1000x200x100 (perhaps slightly shorter, wider, and deeper) which you could fit a BLT or shunting puzzle into. This would have two 'mouths' in each end where rolling stock could enter or exit (you only have to use one of course). The manufacturer could then pre-fit alignment dowels into each case so that they can be easily aligned with each other (as long as the track is laid square at the edge of the board of course). They could also sell fiddle yard boards separately, which could be used not only as fiddle yards, but to connect layouts using only one mouth to those using both. A simpler, but more limiting, alternative would be to stick with a single mouth at each end of the box.

Some context here - skip to just above the image for my track plan query

This layout is the first (perhaps of one, perhaps of many more) set on the fictional British colony of Clarke Island. It has an expansive rail network, which was initially developed by the island's political and business elite to transport their products (with much of the planning and rolling stock construction contracted to GWR). Initially, this was mainly to export goods back to Britain, but as industrialised parts of the island started to become more wealthy its importance in transporting goods and people across the country increased. As the development of road transport in Great Britain hit the rail network hard, the government of an increasingly autonomous Clarke Island resisted the urge to follow the trend, with one official quoted as saying 'people jumping into metal boxes at any time they like; driving anywhere they like; all while trying to avoid thousands of other people doing the same thing will never match the safety or the efficiency of a properly run rail network'.

Instead, events in Britain saw the network go from strength to strength. BR's policy of rapid dieselisation had two effects on Clarke Island's Railways. Firstly, it made a large number of steam locomotives, many quite modern designs, available to the railway as long as they could pay the scrap price and the transportation costs. Having forseen this situation after the publication of the 1955 Modernisation Plan, The railway had purchased HMS Indefatigable, an aircraft carrier now surplus to the Royal Navy's requirements, and converted it for the transportation of large numbers of rail vehicles*. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the first modern traction classes were shipped as surplus in this manner. This included the diesel hydraulics considered by BR to be non-standard (alongside a number of engineers from Swindon who were able to maintain them) and various 350hp shunters which were no longer required due to the changing nature of rail traffic in Great Britain. The delivery of surplus BR locomotives, and the Island's willingness to use them, meant that officials were able to evaluate the various locomotives ordered by BR to replace steam before placing their own orders for the most useful.

By the late 1980s, the rail network was still strong, however some branches had a limited service over poor infrastructure, especially in comparison to the standards of the main lines. One of these was the branch to Westhaven**. In common with a number of other short branches, usually those in rural areas less than 5 miles long, it had been suggested that this line was built to a lower standard, not much higher than the light railways of Great Britain, as a cost saving measure. Despite frequent campaigning from residents and local businesses most of these towns and villages would have to wait until the mid 1990s for their lines to be upgraded to mainline standards, a change which was often complemented by the introduction of DMUs and more frequent services for both passengers and goods. Until this time, line speeds were limited to 45km/h (Clarke Island had switched to the metric system in the 1970s) and services were often worked by small locos. In many cases, the locomotive working services on the branch would also act as a pilot at the junction station. While the mainlines were now using Mk1 BGs to transport most goods (with some adapted to provide refrigeration or freezer facilities) the limited speeds of these branches did not require this, so vans from the steam era were not an uncommon site.

The 1989 timetable shows that two trains per day ran to Westhaven, usually operated by a BR class 09 (Clarke Island Railways had converted a number of class 08s to operate these lines). These ran in the morning and evening, each connecting to an important commuter service at Dornock Junction. An additional train ran on Monday mornings and Friday evenings, while on weekends during the summer various steam locomotives were scheduled to haul tourist specials to the coastal resort.

With context out of the way, here is the scenic part of the layout (the fiddle yard will two tracks entering the scene from the top left). It is pretty much identical to Bridport West Bay, with a very short kickback siding removed. As I envisage it, the bottomost track is the platform, which is likely to have a small station building. The long siding at the top is the main goods siding, while the smaller siding may be used for livestock, but I am not committed to this. The layout is 1082mmx640mm. According to Anyrail, the lengths of each track section which uses flexitrack are:

- platform 645.01mm (enough for two Mk1 equivalents I think)

- headshunt 232mm (enough for the larger tank engines and double headed Holden 101s which may work the specials)

- short siding 298.31mm

All other track pieces shown are settrack - 3*RH points, 3*double straight, 1*R2 22.5, 1*R3 22.5.

Any advice about this layout would be appreciated, particularly as this is my first shunting layout. If I have made any glaring errors in the trackplan which would be unsafe (I hope to have avoided this by drawing inspiration from West Bay) then please correct these too. As I mentioned above, the idea of the short siding of a cattle dock is good enough but I would be open to suggestions for something else to go in its place. I'm also wondering about the big empty space. I am currently imagining fields with a track running from the platfrom towards the town (just off scene on the right). A coastal scene isn't really an option as I have no way of lifting the track above the main board or placing the sea below it, so I am imagining that the sea front is in the town itself.

*I have just made this up and have no knowlege of boats. Please inform me if you feel that there is a more obvious solution (e.g. because a ferry would be able to do the job) for transporting hundreds of rail vehicles to roughly the location of the Azores (yes - the island is arguably too big to be believable but I don't really care about this). Alternatively, if they should have bought another carrier in order to increase capacity please contact me and that can also be resolved.

**All town and station names TBC

12 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Is this the one you mean?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lärchwandschrägaufzug

 

This one is even wider at 9m: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnoyarsk_ship_lift

Oops...

7 minutes ago, Talltim said:

There was me thinking it was 1:220 using 32mm track, for modelling those obscure 7 metre gauge lines...

Here's an 8.2m gauge line.

10 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I didn’t say it was the most popular - just that it is an existing scale (along with the related 1:35). There are several model horse/farm-related figures in 1:32 scale. 0 scale (one or other of the variants) could also work but below that it might be too small for what I had in mind.

 

Out of interest, what is Z0 and has anyone ever made anything for it commercially?

According to a Google translation of a German Wikipedia article (this is the whole article):

The nominal size Z0 (Z0 = intermediate zero) denotes a model railway size on a scale of 1:60 and a track width of 24 mm. Z0 experienced its heyday from the late 1940s to the early 1950s when companies such as BECO (Brennecke & Co.), MALO (Bergmann & Co.) and Kirchner offered a large number of corresponding models. In the GDR, this nominal size was part of NORMAT (standardization and material).

Just now, iands said:

Looks like a problem with the suspension/tilting mechanism. how easy would that be to recreate convincingly on a layout?

Jam some paper into the mechanism?

I'm going to do something very unusual here, and stick up for the RailRoad 08.

Let's get the caveat out of the way to start with: if you care about prototype fidelity this is not for you. The body is not great and the chassis is from a steam loco. However, while it is far from a scale model it is clearly a 350 hp shunter (admittedly there aren't many similar prototypes to confuse it with).

Beyond the very low-spec appearance I can only complement the models for their performance. I still have an early 2000s model in DIno Safari livery (other liveries are available but if you were buying a present for me, age 7, you couldn't overlook trains and dinosaurs in one hit) which runs on DC and it is a very smooth runner at all speeds. It is only beaten at crawling by my brand new DCC fitted Hornby 56 and is controllable at prototypical speeds (even though it is capable of significantly exceeding them. Electrical continuity is fantastic despite no pickups on the centre axle. In fact, I am not planning on upgrading this to DCC because of how well it runs. I had been planning to buy a small loco for a planned DC layout, but after giving some of my old locos a test run realised that the RailRoad 08 would do a fine job.

43 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

Is that not the reason why companies like Hornby sell train sets - you get everything you need in a box: track, controller, locomotive and some rolling stock?

It is but it's a little too simplictic to be rewarding for a lot of teenagers. What we are trying to advocate is a range of kits made by a larger manufacturer which are designed to fit onto a chassis produced by that manufacturer. This is to give them access to an area of the hobby many would consider more enjoyable than running an RTR loco around in circles while also reassuring them that they have all the parts they need, and that these parts are designed to work together.

11 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Why not? I'm not aware of any baggage associated with either of them in the UK. I actually have a Rivarossi American passenger car, but I've never heard of Arnold.

 

Might be my age though!

Lack brand recognition may be a minor issue. For example, you've never heard of Arnold.

3 hours ago, TonyMay said:

There is a solution - which is not to run trains past each other through the curve, but to treat it as "interleaved track".  This could be achieved by simply remembering to do this; alternatively it would be possible to design a system whereby only one of the tracks could be powered at one time and the signaller has to choose between them.

An interesting idea which I will try to remember in case it is useful on a real layout in the future. It wouldn't work on this example though as the tracks would be used for storage.