DK123GWR

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).

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).

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

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.

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.

That's the sam platform as the first diagram, but I couldn't be bothered to redraw it. 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. 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. 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). Something like this. but the lengths of the tracks are not exact as I would determine what is required through experimentation.

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.

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. You are correct. I rather suspected that this may be the case. 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! 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. 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. 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). 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. 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.

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

Oops...

Here's an 8.2m gauge line.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

It's a good idea, but in the space I allow myself on Anyrail there is more than enough variation due to the need to keep to the minimum radius for the layout while incorporating the necessary points. Station layouts also force lines to be kept close (to reduce overall width) unless there is an island platform. I have now found a way to increase the radii of the Slough fiddle yard curves (the only sub 700mm curves now are in areas with large clearances to other lines forced by the factors mentioned above). However, I feel that it would be good to keep this discussion going to see if anybody has experience in this area.

So in 00 would Dapol be well placed to enter this market by producing proper chassis for their loco kits (and then expanding the range), or do you think it would be better for somebody to start a new range (perhaps Hornby bringing back the Airfix brand - and hopefully some of their customers)?

So if your estimate is correct and we change the clearances from prototypical to minimal, you might just about get two Mk3s past each other at 700mm with 50mm spacing. However, I think that it is only the length of Mk3s and Mk4s which has put the UK into group 3. Mk1s sit comfortably within group 4, and so does a class 47. That would suggest you may be able to get spacings for a pre-1976 layout down to 55mm or less on 600mm radius. Of course, this may not work pre-1968 layout as you would also have to take the swing at the front of 4-6-x steam locos into account.

To quote me on the 'why do you model BR Blue?' thread: *No longer true - I saw a pair of Colas 67s top and tailing three coaches earlier in the week. That said, I do think I would be more likely to model my childhood if the models were cheaper. A model of my railway memories (living in Chippenham, occaisionally travelling to Bristol - which I consider close enough to home for this purpose) would feature EWS 66s (easy - I have a RailRoad one already), and FGW/GWR 153s, 158s, 166s, HSTs, and IETs. Lets say I opt for my teenage years with GWR stock (but still using EWS locos because I like the livery more than the ones that are now prevalent). The HST is also reasonably priced as a Hornby train set, and while more expensive than the BR blue HSTs on ebay I assume it has been updated with a new motor and a full length Mk3 - can anyone confirm this? Then we hit trouble. Hornby make the 153 for a price that isn't off the scale (maybe it could be pushed down a little, but not much). However, it is only available in Regional Railways (not something a child is likely to recognise) or East Midlands Trains (only any good if you live in the area served - and looking up the livery I think it may be one inherited from Central Trains in 2007 when a current 17 year old would have been 4, so they may not remember that livery either). What about the 158s? Bachmann do produce two car units in GWR livery, but they cost over £200! It looks like no sprinters at all then. I am not aware of a GWR 166 - models exist for FGW but these seem to be hens teeth on ebay so I've no idea how much they cost. The IET is, of course, prohibitively expensive. To begin to recify this, Hornby could release 153s in more liveries - doing GWR for example would cover most of southwest England and parts of Wales. Could Hornby produce a new 158 body on the chassis of a 156 and release it for a similar price to the 156? I suspect it would be feasable if they produced a number of liveries to make the model attractive to customers in other areas too and thus spread the tooling costs around more. I don't know what to suggest about Turbos and IETs, but I would suggest that a if a RailRoad IET existed it would be the staple of trainsets for the next few decades. There's my five minute attempt to demonstrate a what a young person from near Bristol would face if they wanted to recreate their local railway. I'm sure that the situation is the same elsewhere. From Chippenham, most young people will organise days out together in either Bath, Bristol, or London. Travel is usually by train. The interior of a train is a surprisingly common backdrop to people's instagram posts too - though of course these photos are probably more to do with showing off that you are 'going somewhere' than about showing a passion for railways. Nevertheless, in my experience rail travel remains popular among young people as driving yourself is expensive, being driven by your parents limits your independence, and increasingly because cars are polluting. When I did work experience in London, I was surprised by the number of children going to school on the tube (it's the urban equivalent of coaches from the villages I suppose). That said in the area I was staying, I would be unsupprised to hear that most people could barely afford a Holden 101, and tube stock is far less common (and more expensive) than those. I therefore disagree that a lack of rail travel adversely affects the prevalence of young modellers.

I'm currently messing around with Anyrail planning nothing in particular - I'm just trying to improve my grasp of the software and track design in general. One of the layouts that I have produced uses steamline track with 50mm spacing on most of the layout. The minimum radius on scenic sections is 608mm however most of scenic track has a radius of 706mm (equivalent to radius 6) or greater, which I recall reading is enough for 50mm spacing. However, the fiddle yard would only fit if the innermost track was built to a smaller radius (572mm). At the moment, this runs parallel to a 622mm radius curve outside of it (there are a further four curves at 50mm intervals). However, I am very doubtful about whether the spacing of the 572mm and 622mm curves is sufficent to allow Mk3s to pass each other, and I'm not even sure about Mk1s (the layout is based on 1980s Slough, with a few compromises such as heavy compression of the station length and simplification of the trackwork at the start of the Windsor branch). What would you reccommend as the minimum radii separated by 50mm with modern stock? Thanks in advance for any advice.

I'm not too attatched to the containers - it was merely a guess at how the transportation of good might work in such a situation. Regarding opertations, I think this migh be something to look at in more detail when I decide to build a specific layout as it will clearly vary between each location.

An out-of-era Woolworths sign is perfectly on topic. The following is not: Incidentally, my Dad took me and my sister to North Wales last week. One day we went for a walk along the harbour wall at Holyhead; in the car on the way back to Caernarfon my sister saw this sign. If she hadn't asked about it, I would never have realised that this was yet another major difference between my chilhood memories and those of many kids I go to school with (from September, everybody in Year 9 downwards will have been born after the iPhone was released, so I'm also one of the youngest to remember a world without the modern smartphone). To try and push this discussion back on topic: - 2:1 loco to wagon ratio - BR Railfreight liveries in 2017 - The 56081 looks like it has been resprayed but they were so desparate to put it on the layout that they forgot to apply the transfers