DK123GWR

2 minutes ago, BMS said:

Just to make the point which may not be relevant - while track spacing on curves may need to be say 55mm that does not apply to straights. On my layout the straights are at 50 and the curves are at 60; achieved by lengthening the outer straights by 5cm or more compared to inner adjoining curves; This also gets away from the toy train potential point that all tracks are equidistant all the time; look at the prototype. The minus is that the inner straights tend to be shorter than otherwise.

 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.

12 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Exactly - and having something more kit-based and creative could appeal to people who wouldn’t be interested in a conventional ‘train set.’ Hence my RTR chassis + interchangeable kits and bits idea.

 

Obviously this already exists in a sense with the combination of cheap RTR chassis and simple scratchbuilding/body kits/3D printed bits from smaller manufacturers, but I think to appeal to a wider market it would be necessary for a mainstream manufacturer to make both the chassis and the body parts, and to sell the chassis as separate items (Kato already does sell separate chassis). This is a lot more accessible and encouraging to newcomers than buying a chassis with a body they don’t want attached to it, then having to seek out a fairly obscure small manufacturer to get a body kit, and in other areas of model-making it is often expected that one manufacturer will supply most of the different bits for something like this.

 

The idea is to appeal to people who like making things but wouldn’t want an RTR train set, and to make scratch/kit building/bashing possible for a newcomer. If you think about it, for wargaming, model aircraft etc. a newcomer will often immediately expect to be building stuff from kits, as that’s what they came for. They might also build a plastic loco kit as a static model if it’s made by a manufacturer they recognise or involves similar skills, even if they don’t usually do railways (Revell produce one or two locos alongside their other plastic models for example). As an example of the reverse situation, I am not a serious aircraft modeller but have built a few of the snap-together Revell ‘mini-kits’ in the past. The potentially off-putting bit for the newcomer who wants to make a working model railway is the need for a working (and for locos, powered) chassis, but if the same manufacturer supplies an appropriate one this needn’t be a problem. The other issue could be layout wiring, which is why battery or radio control for the powered chassis might be appropriate.

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)?

6 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

Of course the other question is whether you're just trying to avoid vehicles striking one another, or whether you're trying to ensure prototypical clearances between stock on the curves.  In the real railway you'd have about 18" (ie 6 mm in model form between passing vehicles), so the answer is also dependent on whether you want that clearance.

 

...most UK models are not that wide.  I'd therefore be tempted to deduct about 5 mm from the figures presented by AMRA for 00

 

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.

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Fact is most modern railways are much less interesting than railways used to be. Many lines are suburban only and while there are plenty of trains, there might be 1 or 2 varieties. Is it surprising that many youngsters don't get interested in trains any more?

  To quote me on the 'why do you model BR Blue?' thread:

On 10/05/2020 at 21:53, DK123GWR said:

3) There is a larger variety of rolling stock. The brief period when GWR were changing over from HSTs to class 800s, and still had a few items of rolling stock in FGW purple is the most interesting period in my lifetime. I still remember an HST going past with a mixture of green and purple, as well as a first class coach in swallow livery. Every other point in my life has been watching the same shaped trains go past, wearing either purple or green. My love for EWS 66s must have something to do with the breaks from the relative monotony that they provided.

4) Related to 3, there were loco-hauled trains in rail blue. I live in the former WR, and have had a few trips on former SR routes as well as one journey from Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly. I have never been hauled by a locomotive on the mainline (excluding class 43s). In fact, I'm not sure that I've seen a diesel locomotive moving at high speed* before (although I did get a very good view of the Flying Scotsman a couple of years ago).

*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.

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Many have possibly never taken a regular train, so why should they even think about model railways as a hobby - they don't.

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.

13 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

First, your layout and you get to make the decisions - and ultimately how realistic it is, and what compromises are acceptable, is all up to you.  If you want to run containers because containers interest you, then perhaps trying to be as realistic as the real world shouldn't be as important.

 

For realism, yes the above seems reasonable (though I am certainly not an expert) - though you could just as easily use any variety of freight wagon that is enclosed and has a side door (what UK freight wagons are called is something I don't know).

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.

4 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

Slightly off topic, but the old Woolies in Holyhead, backing onto the carriage sidings, still has its Woolworths sign. I had to explain to my foster kids what Woolies was; made me feel old, my first job was on the tills at Dudley Woolies

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

2 hours ago, montyburns56 said:

A Woolworths Pick-N-Mix Special Charter.

 

47477 Arten Gill Viaduct

 

 

I know this will sound ridiculous, but as one of the youngest people to remember Woolies (my sister is two years younger and doesn't have a clue) this caption makes me feel very old.

So would you agree that with Siphons/BGs/CCTs/GUVs (depending upon era, availability, and required capacity) the same fundamental system could work?

To clarify, it is now:

1) Product manufactured or grown abroad

2) Product transported to Clarke Island

3) Freight (mostly containerised) transported to distribution centre by train

4) Containers opened at distribution centre; goods placed in warehouse or onto distribution trains as required

5) Distribution trains (formed of BGs or similar) run from distribution centre to stations/yards

6) Goods unloaded at station/yard* and distributed locally by road

*Could this include adding/removing wagons at yards serving large population centres? This could help to reduce the time the train is stationary if the unloading would take a long time. On the other hand, extended stops could be used to allow passenger trains to overtake.

9 hours ago, mdvle said:

they all arrive in their own containers from separate directions to a distribution warehouse on your island...

...where the mini-containers are removed from the shipping containers, sorted into new ones, and sent on to their destination according to local demand.

While this system would not be as efficient as lifting a container off of the boat and onto the train, that system has already been proven unviable (unless you like rotten bannanas). Would separate types of wagon for each good be any better? It would still require transhipment of goods from the container used on the ship to the wagon, but a standardised system could not be used. This is the best compromise I can find between the efficient transhipment of containerised freight and the need to deliver a variety of goods to each destination. I have discarded leaving most of the containers empty as that would be frightfully expensive and inefficient.

On 05/08/2020 at 01:18, mdvle said:

I think at this point you might be pushing your island in the middle of the Atlantic a bit far, so perhaps consider a different way to get what you want.  Perhaps go for a "alternative history" of the UK where the big 4 remain after WW2 but never have the money to properly upgrade.  So periodically the government funds a diesel build to be shared among the big 4, but the railways in general remain run down as they remain starved for money.  Steam remains far longer because of the coal reserves mean coal is cheap compared to imported oil.  Because BR never exists there is no incentive for a Beeching to cut costs to the treasury, so the railways limp along and any attempts at cutting costs are met with refusal by the government who now (with no money at risk) bow to the wishes of the public to keep services regardless of the losses.  Perhaps for tourist purposes the government provides some money to provide a few "intercity" routes to a more prestige standard.

The trouble with this is that the UK in the 1940s must be used as a geographical starting point. You would also have to bear in mind that the enourmous changes in the history of the railway would have impacted the development of towns. As well as this, the system that you suggest sounds as though it is being stretched unsustainably. Whereas Clarke Island would keep on older locos because there is no need to replace them, the alternative British history would see them kept because there was no way to replace them. In these circumstances, it is hard to imagine that road transport would not take over from rail even more quickly than in real life (unless there was no investment in roads either - which would really leave a crippled economy).

On 05/08/2020 at 01:18, mdvle said:

I doubt it would be containers - containers really work where there is a bunch of modal shifts - say truck -> ship -> train -> truck and the receiving location can justify an entire container of a single item.  For example, a small town's food store is unlikely to need an entire container of bananas - they would go bad before most could be sold.

 

Far more likely to have assorted goods wagons loaded at a central warehouse with the assortment of items each town would require - so essentially a variety of wagons with the occasional insulated one for items that need to be kept cool.  Then whatever the industry on your small modeled section needs - whether it be wood, metal, or something else.

Any imports would require at least two modal shifts (road/rail -> ship in the country of origin and ship -> rail on Clarke Island). As for the entire conainer of bannanas, couldn't a system of standardised containers designed to fit into a container allow a mixture of goods requiring similar storage conditions (eg. refrigerated, frozen) to be delivered in a single shipping container? 

On 05/08/2020 at 01:18, mdvle said:

 

Simple - the islands started out poor and the 1st world takes advantage of them.

 

Take the Caribbean - the arrival of cheap air fares in the 80s resulted in a tourist boom in the cold winter months to the islands - but they never got the chance to cash in on the boom.  Because at the same time American money came up with the all-inclusive resort.  So the Caribbean Islands get some low wage jobs, an American company parachutes in some management, they wall off the property to discourage guests from experiencing the real island, and the majority of the money that the people on holiday pay never leaves the US.

 

Then comes the cruise ships, and same thing - the money spent on cruises never leaves the US except the token amounts necessary, and the hundreds of guests spend at most a couple of hours with 15 minutes of the docks buying souvenirs made in China.

 

And thus those countries remain poor.

 

 

Google Maps gives Brighton to Edinburgh as 375 miles.

 

I think at this point you might be pushing your island in the middle of the Atlantic a bit far, so perhaps consider a different way to get what you want.  Perhaps go for a "alternative history" of the UK where the big 4 remain after WW2 but never have the money to properly upgrade.  So periodically the government funds a diesel build to be shared among the big 4, but the railways in general remain run down as they remain starved for money.  Steam remains far longer because of the coal reserves mean coal is cheap compared to imported oil.  Because BR never exists there is no incentive for a Beeching to cut costs to the treasury, so the railways limp along and any attempts at cutting costs are met with refusal by the government who now (with no money at risk) bow to the wishes of the public to keep services regardless of the losses.  Perhaps for tourist purposes the government provides some money to provide a few "intercity" routes to a more prestige standard.

 

 

I doubt it would be containers - containers really work where there is a bunch of modal shifts - say truck -> ship -> train -> truck and the receiving location can justify an entire container of a single item.  For example, a small town's food store is unlikely to need an entire container of bananas - they would go bad before most could be sold.

 

Far more likely to have assorted goods wagons loaded at a central warehouse with the assortment of items each town would require - so essentially a variety of wagons with the occasional insulated one for items that need to be kept cool.  Then whatever the industry on your small modeled section needs - whether it be wood, metal, or something else.

I've been away for a few days so haven't been checking RMweb. I'll read through this in more detail when I get chance but one thing I have noticed is that the 600 miles quoted should be 600 km (my error).

6 hours ago, mdvle said:

So first things first - your layout, your rules.

 

There is nothing to say that the layout needs to make sense from a "reality" perspective, particularly if reality would rule out stock that you would really prefer to use.

 

My comments below are based on trying to go for some sort of expectation of reality, which may not suit what you are aiming for.

 

Your fictional island is 200 miles, for comparison Jamaica is 150 miles.  Jamaica has not much of the railways it had, though some private - resource extration based - railway operations remain.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Jamaica

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD6LlXNn_2Y

 

 

You are thinking too big for a small island.

 

Islands typically have cheap infrastructure, short-ish distances, and "island time".

 

To go by the old BR Type system, it would mostly be Type 2 locos with maybe a small number of Type 3 for the coal or stone - but more likely simply run say 2 Type-2's on a train rather than a bigger loco.

 

And certainly none of the newer, more complicated and hence more difficult to repair locos with electronics.

 

This means your 9F, 56's, 47's are all highly unlikely simply because the trackwork wouldn't support them - and there certainly wouldn't be express trains or the resulting Class 50's.  Really likely moved to DMU's, but for model interest better to keep it to say 2 coaches and a loco.

 

From the sounds of things such restrictions may not appeal to you, so perhaps a change to the backstory - a bigger island, less poor so hence more money for infrastructure.  Maybe a "royal" family, or other hereditary ruling system (aka the enlightened dictator) that has deliberately chosen to save the island from the pitfalls of the automobile while investing in the railway.

 

 

Another possibility would be to keep the island as steam operated in the current era - steam engines are (relatively) easy to repair without fancy education (aka electronics) and possibly expensive parts, and with local coal the cost of importing oil is eliminated.

 

The wealth argument makes sense. I'm also looking at my backstory now and wondering how the island ended up poor, given that the railway was supposed to facilitate the spread of the industrial revolution to Clarke Island. The physical size also makes less sense now that I have looked at Ireland (50% larger) and realised that even the Dublin-Belfast service is not all double track. I think I'll keep the fundamental backstory but increase the size to around 600*200 miles (England + Scotland south of Edinburgh/Glasgow).

This would make it large enough to order extra units of new designs to work alongside the second-hand locos (there's not much point in spending more than required if you are being offered something with most of its working life remaining at a low cost). The political structure needs to be one of loose affiliation in order to explain the preference for rail - perhaps the local government was granted full political control in exchange for allowing the UK to maintain a large military presence (another form of traffic for the railway of course).

Coaches would still be put into service as they were withdrawn from BR (perhaps with retrofitted aircon and new bogies). A new fleet of driving coaches would most likely be produced, with cables added to the coaches which operate on these routes (most likely the newest available at the time). Most goods could probably be carried in containers (refrigerated if required) and hopper/tank wagons could easily be sourced from BR or built new. Are there any other wagons that would definitely be required in a rail-based transport system?

Freight operations in the modern era will require creative thinking. Steam era operating practises would not be sufficent on most lines (although you could get away with it on small branches).

4 hours ago, mdvle said:

You could go from one extreme - the island has a lucrative mineral to sell or is of strategic importance so London lavishes it with bribes new stuff, so everything is in good shape - to the opposite extreme (think Cuba) where the island is poor and so relies on second hand goods, or the occasional generosity from London, and so the overall look is of "made do" and cannibalize it keep running, with the odd new item.  Or something in the middle.

First of all, a warning that the following was written while I was tired. Consquently, the historical accuracy/economic thinking/grammar may be difficult to understand.

My plan had been that during the BR era they were able to buy redundant stock at the cost of the sale (covering shipping, etc.). Around 1970, this meant that they were able to completely refresh the fleet as the diesel hydraulics and many new steam locomotives (including BR standard classes) became available. However, the supply since then has been more patchy. Class 56s have allowed 9Fs to retire or be redeployed on passenger services in place of less reliable hydraulics. Some class 50s were available to take on the express services, but as preservation groups are considered a higher priority nearly half of the BR fleet were not. Small groups of successful diesel electric locos such as the 37 and 47 have taken on freight work previously performed by various BR standards. This has allowed the standards to be redeployed as cover for the even older locomotives which often work branch line passenger services (there is no intention to replace steam on these lines as many serve tourist destinations).

In short, if stock cannot be sold or preserved, it will be offered to the Clarke Island Railway. If they do not want it, it will join the queue to be scrapped. While not state of the art, the railway is still the main form of goods transport as there has been little investment in roads.

5 hours ago, mdvle said:

If the models don't have to go back then the one thing you could do is remove the buffers and have your island simply use the knuckle couplers.  If the island is tropical you could create more open passenger cars that would be more suitable to the heat, or if you move to a more modern time (and a Cuba influenced poor make-do railway) put rooftop air conditioners onto older diesels and say Mk1 rolling stock - perhaps if it compartment stock give 1st class air conditioners and let the lower classes swelter (anyone wanting to pursue this idea may want to look at US detail parts - adding caravan style roof air conditioners to older diesels is common). 

If any models are run on a UK layout it would be as repatriated preserved examples. In other words, modifications such as added AC would remain. Regarding coaches, the mainline will likely be using Mk1s and early Mk2s by now, but older designs (perhaps including a three compartment four wheel coach built by the GWR specifically for the CIR) may persist on branch lines. This is particularly true of those that are now semi-heritage lines.

5 hours ago, mdvle said:

You could take inspiration from places like the Philippines or parts of the Caribbean and go for colourful paint schemes,

'What would a Class 47 look like in pink with yellow lining?' was one of the thoughts which drew me toward this idea. Please note that this is not a final decision on livery.

5 hours ago, mdvle said:

As for rolling stock, it will depend (at least for goods) as to what the island produces/imports.  If it is a poor island, perhaps with bad geography, one could do a modern-ish railway with diesels that operates more like a 1920s railroad where almost everything is still moved on the railway because there are few roads, and few motor vehicles.

 

But in any planning remember that these sorts of places tend to need to import almost everything - there is unlikely to be local coal so it all needs to arrive by sea, same for oil/petrol.  So a dockside scene could be very interesting.

Originally food, coal, and stone were transported (the last two having been transhipped from narrow gauge lines). This would have expanded to include most types of goods. Due to a relatively poor road network (a road like the A350 between Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum is a 'good' road and anything better is exceptional) the railway continues to be the primary form of passenger and freigh transport. Environmental concerns mean this is unlikely to change. Wagons will likely be a random mixture of eras as some industries (eg. coal and stone) may have moved on to modern wagons and operating practises (using early hopper designs) while others would be forced to use and adapt older vehicles as the equivalent traffic has since died out in Britain.

I think that operating practises could be a combination of older and newer ones, where some more recent ideas to save time have been adopted into a railway which is still operationally in the steam era.

22 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It's as though he'd rather people travelled by car.

 

Though with the ongoing rise of EVs that won't be such a long term environmental catastrophe. 

HS2 could be complete by the time we have made sufficient progress on this front.

At the moment I have a trainset which can only really be developed into a slightly better train set. I have realised though that upgrading it could free up track for a 'proper' layout - small enough to fit on a windowsill - which will allow me to try out some new techniques. That's when I had the idea of Clarke Island. To summarise the first page of my history of the island (2200 words and growing):

Clarke Island is approximately 200 miles long and sits in the Atlantic Ocean to the west of Morrocco. After a businessman (Eustace Bigginhope) built his own narrow gauge railway to transport stone and coal from the mountains around 1850, a rival businessman and the island's governor (George Clarke) realised the potential of the railway to transport their goods (including agricultural products from the east). As a result, soon after his friend Gooch became chair of the GWR, Clarke approached him with plans for a standard gauge line across the island. The island was occaisionally used by the GWR to test experimental designs, and later rolling stock was supplied by BR when it was retired with a long service life remaining, or when their intended service life had long expired (and were available at any price above scrap value).

The layout that I want to build is of a small station (name not yet decided) on the north coast, where a branch line of the (green) standard gauge network ends and is met by another line which goes to meet the easternmost line of the narrow gauge network (yellow). It will likely be set in the steam era to allow smaller locos, coaches, and wagons to be used. There is a limited passenger service on the line towards the narrow gauge transhipment centre, and on the line towards the capital city Avonmouth (the urban area which dominates the peninsula in the centre of the west coast). Most goods are supplied from the mainline, but coal occaisionally comes down from the narrow gauge transhipment centre.

The Island.svg

In the future, it may be joined by more layouts (Kawmib Junction in the south is tempting, as are all of the narrow gauge transhipment centres, and maybe the bridge to Westskerrey Island).

Although I am not expecting any imminent engineering works (as mentioned the track is currently in use elsewhere) I have decided to start the thread now to get an idea of what rolling stock people think could have appeared on Clarke Island. During steam years it would almost universally be GWR stock, but perhaps with a higher ratio of experimental locomotives or older classes. After nationalisation, perhaps some aging locomotives from other regions could be brought in, as well as a few Austerity locomotives. Later on, locomotives left redundant by changing demand in the UK (or changes in BR policy) could appear. This might include individual Class 08s or, on the main line, diesel hydraulics and newer steam locos such as 9Fs. In the modern era you could have the residual 9Fs and hydraulics, as well as diesel electrics with life extensions. The trick is to make sure that the rolling stock is allowed to become diverse enough for interest, yet remain realistic. This is where I would like some advice, as it is easy to find information on what did run, but harder to find what could have survived longer given a strange set of circumstances (as this is usually irrelevant).

Any thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated, whatever the point in history (the first layout is likely to be steam era, but others may not).

53 minutes ago, 313201 said:

The only way to mount pickups on a HST motor is to use pieces of plasticard to raise the board enough so that a long enough piece can stick out over the metal wheels which is rather awkward to do, I speak from personal experience here.

 

In the end I concluded that as the motors all metal wheels are already supplying power to the motor via the wire which is connected to the motor housing, extra pickups here are technically not needed.

 

Having said that, I did manage to fit pickups on both sides of 2 Class 91 motors which I have used on another project, however, these motors are both cd converted and have no traction tyres and geared wheels like those on the leading end of you HST are fitted in place of the tyred wheels.

 

Points of caution here is that 1st, to fit pickups alongside the motor, it is best done with the motor removed from the bogie and 2nd, is that the board needs to be secured with superglue to hold it in place.  The problem here with working in such a small area is that you need something to hold the bogie in place as it will move around but also there is the slight risk of the glue melting due go the heat of soldering.

 

So in that respect, gluing the board in place is not a good idea but it can be secured better with a small self tapping screw which would have to be filed flush with the underside of the bogie so that it does not catch on turnouts and crossings.

 

However, as I mentioned before, pickups are not really necessary at the motor end and could be fitted instead to the 1st coach coupled to the powercar, yes it means they would be permanently coupled but it would certainly be easier than trying to fit pickups by the motor itself.

 

It all sounds confusing I know but personally with a HST I would try to add pickups onto the bogies of the 1st coach and wire them through to the powercar via the gangway..

 

Hope this helps.

I see that it would be far easier to fit the pickups to the coach than the motor bogie, but at the moment I don't have space to store them together (this may change in a few months if I can get planning permission from my father). Incidentally, the Class 91 was going to be one of the ones I did next if the HST went well, but as the HST is the only locomotive in my primary fleet which could be done without Ultrascale wheels (or waiting for Peter's Spares to bring out their product) I decided to prioritise this.

2 hours ago, eastwestdivide said:

Closer to home, Denaby S Yorks, although it's not quite under the bridge:

https://goo.gl/maps/AVukqE5w8oWgQFNr8

 

and the LC with an underpass at Ely:

https://goo.gl/maps/jThdCokmWd92R4qf7

The way the images have been joined together in the Denaby photo makes it look like a prototype for the tracklaying on my first train set.

9 hours ago, 313201 said:

Cheers for the picture of the motor.

 

Using the added pickups thd way I described earlier today, any pickups added over the geared wheels on the leading bogie would be connected to the same side of the decoder as the pink wire I think it is on the left motor tag.

It's meant to be orange, but the colours are often ambiguous. You also have to double check white and grey at times. Do you have any ideas about where to mount the board here? The gears and motor cover most of the obvious places.

Tape and extra wires present due to DCC conversion.

11 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

either the block or the motor unit and can be levered off with a screwdriver once the bogie is removed from the body.

I could remove the bogie easily and had already tried using a screwdriver to separate the two pieces. Where would you recommend using as a leverage point?

4 minutes ago, 313201 said:

This is actually ideal for making pickups for both sides of the bogie because you cut a slot in the copper surface to prevent a short circuit then glue the piece of board to the bogie.

Where would you glue the copper board? On the motor bogie above is doesn't seem to be an option (as the motor would be in the way) but if you attatched from below you would surely have trouble feeding the wires to it, as well as running the risk of fouling rails on points.

I am looking at ways to improve the electrical continuity of some of my models, which have a habit of stalling. One of these is a Hornby HST (service sheet here) which I have noticed has gears on the wheels of the unpowered bogies and dummy power cars. How do you take apart the bogies in order to swap these and fit extra pickups? One complication that I am expecting is that the geared wheel is currently insulated from the axle while the other wheel is electrically connected (as pickup would be from the non-tyred side). To fit pickup on all wheels, I would imagine that this must be reversed as it would be difficult to fit pickups to the geared side, especially on the power bogie. Is it possible to do this, and if so how?

Thanks in advance for any help.

28 minutes ago, john new said:

Transfer or stencil up side down?

For some reason I'd just assumed that they were painted by hand.

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

That reminds me of some dodgy signage that passed through my scanner the other day : -

 

How did they manage that?

6 hours ago, Sarahagain said:

 

Probably the reason for two power cars and one Mk3 coach is that that was the contents of the HST train sets...

 

 

 

I realise that, it just strikes me as odd that when people went to buy more coaches they would (in theory) have a 1/3 chance of buying Mk3s, whereas the actual number who did seems to be far fewer, based upon what I recall seeing.