Foden

Related question... what would be the best glue to use to stick plastic sheet such as slaters to the wood? I've read a light scoring to the glued face of the plastic sheet and a thin layer of Gorilla glue will work well?

Thanks for all the replies guys, got a good few ideas now going forward.

They certainly are. Shame about the extra 20% over there though, I’d feel pretty hard done by for that. My dilemma is last year I was a week late into the shops getting mine. I was after a plane wood example but ended up with a white as it was all I could get. Do I stick with more white ones or get the plane wood? They’re going on a white wall so I suspect I might just keep them the same. Although I do think the plane wood looks a touch more elegant.

Lidl have the Livarno display cabinets on sale again from Sunday 15th December priced at £49.99. https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/p/great-gifts/livarno-living-collector-s-display-cabinet/p28106 I’ll definitely be in for another couple.

I really do like the class 31 model. I’m so glad I managed to re-chassis my Dutch 31110 before the rot set in as it were. I’m hoping ‘21 will be the year Hornby take advantage of the model and release a couple of the liveries people are crying out for. I really can’t see a case for not doing so. I’m certain a banger blue 31, along with a Dutch 31/5, and a Mainline 31/4 would be fantastic sellers. Equally I’d be shocked if all of those were released in one year, but spread out over three provides three years of good returns on the tooling. They listened with the class 60 and released two more Trainload liveries to complement the original run Petroleum sector, I’m hoping they see similar sense here.

Thanks guys. Might keep the setup as it is then. But might also put some money into a Sprig on a test track for speed of changing CVs, and leave the PR3 as the wireless interface, and for changing things like load CVs on the main.

As per the title. I have a PR3 which I use with JMRI for decoder tweaking and also sometimes as an interface for wireless control. Occasionally I experience some connectivity and lag issues, but not sure if that is software or not. For the most part it’s reliable and does a job. I note the PR4 is supposed to be ‘up to three times quicker’ and more stable, but otherwise I can’t see any added features over the previous release. is the PR4 worth getting to replace a PR3 in other people’s experiences and opinions?

I'd looked with interest at this too, and thought a similar question. The only photo I have for reference is from my own collection taken at the GCR at Loughborough To my eye, that's under the level of the sleepers, so probably just under top of cork layer in 'our' civil engineering

The signage was never going on, wasp stripes on the doors was a possibility if they could be laid nice and flat to get the effect right. Not atall, no! I have to confess to buyer's remorse after picking this up. I've always been a fan of working (as in working without physical interaction) depot doors, and the mechanism for the way this works is very tidy and nicely packaged, which is what sold it to me. "I'll make it work, I'm sure I can" was the thought that crossed my mind as I handed over the cash. Truth be told the building IS a nice kit, it's just not British outline. I wouldn't have gave it a second look had it not had its trickery. That is the humble truth I'm ashamed to say. That said, I've not given up on this yet, I feel there's life in this with some vision and craftsmanship.

I thought your MSPaintcraft had set the bar pretty damn high with the first revision, but this.....

I did wonder if the excuse of heavy cranes would allow the height. That said they seem to be more appropriate from what I've seen for large multi track buildings at major depots. But I feel some compromise and license will need to be implemented here at some stage.

The issue is, the mechanism for the operating doors fills most of the height of the roof for the first quarter, so losing the height, would be losing the mechanism for the operating doors sadly. I agree completely. Right now I'm thinking a kind of hybrid building. Using the original structure without the roof, and scratch building either a triangular pitched roof, or the saw tooth you describe. Also cladding the main structure with more convincing (and more to scale) brickwork and lintels would help I think. It really does. Most pictures I see are from the ground up, so this does help. Although I fear maybe a little extravagant in design for my skills right now.

One of the things I picked up at Warley was a Proses LS-037 'engine house' kit from the Bachmann stand. I was impressed with the mechanism of the twin opening shed doors, and interior lights, plus it looked a nice kit, so on impulse I bought one, hoping to use it on a 90s era TMD style layout. The kit obviously has origins as a HO engine shed, and is very 'American' in appearance. What I would like to do is use the kit, but modify it in such a way that it would look more organic on a British layout of the era. But between a couple of different ideas I've had wandering through my mind this past week, ranging from cladding the whole kit in Slaters brick plasticard, to adding a brick lower structure and metal upper, with possibly even adding a pitched roof, I'm finding myself at a loss. I can't get away from how square and boxy the structure is, and although on inspection it's a fine kit, and would look wonderful on an American layout, I'm not seeing a definitive vision of how I can get it fitting in a scene depicting a typical British yard. Put simply, I can't seem to find a prototype that is a realistic starting point for adaptation. I'm thinking the structure is maybe too tall for a British brick built shed, and the wrong profile for a steel framed structure of the type? Maybe this was a poor impulse purchase on reflection, but I like the door mechanism, and am possibly even giving thought to using the mechanism incorporated into a scrathbuild. Any thoughts, or advice before I go further? As I seem to have encountered a modeller's mental block!

Cheers guys, it's as I'd thought. Trouble is, the net is full of conflicting info about these, as above really. Also plenty of naysayers, saying how it's a backward step... Maybe a little premature as I'll lay my first Unifrogs next week, but I think on the face of it they're a logical step forward, not back. I get people saying there's plastic in the frog but it's so tiny is it even really visible? Even so, in my eyes it's still more pleasing on the eye than insulated rail joiners!

Interesting, you hear largely favourable stories of how diesel hydraulics performed on the Western region. It would appear from the outside looking in that the classes were (for the most part) well designed, good performers, stood up rather well to the rigours of the work they were asked to do (certainly no worse than many other early pilot DE locos), and generally looked upon favourably by the crews that worked and maintained them. So unless, with respect, many of these recollections are nostalgic memories through maybe slightly rose tinted glasses, one wonders why BR were so adamant not to take the diesel hydraulic principle any further? Politics? Expense? Personal favouritism at board level?

Thankyou, that seems to confirm most of what I thought was true to begin with. An interesting observation is that the point rails are powered, so I would only need to add droppers to the stock rails at the entracne to the point. I'm assuming underneath the point rails coming off the frog are electrically linked to the corresponding stock rail as standard?

I am awaiting a delivery of a few Peco 00 Bullhead points for my planned small layout, so forgive me, as I don't yet have them to look at. My assumption with the 'new' Unifrog points was that there are small plastic infills at either end of a metal frog. Out of the pack, these plastic infills isolate the frog, and the point operates as a traditional Insulfrog? However, I'm a DCC user, and want the maximum operational reliability from my pointwork. To that end, I believe they come pre-wired with a wire from the frog to connect to an accessory switch (a cobalt motor in my case) which switches the frog and allows it to be used as a completely live (minus the very small infills) Electrofrog? I also believe that unlike the previous Code 75 Electrofrogs I LAST used, these Unifrogs come out of the pack with the stock & switch rails electrically linked, and don't use the switch blades for electrical contact powering the rail to the frog, likewise there is no 'gap' before the frog, and no wires to cut from beneath when powering the frog via an accessory switch, as the plastic infill serves this purpose? Also, the plastic infill on the outer end of the frog means that a regular metal (bullhead) fishplate can be used, rather than an insulated joiner? Are those four points correct? I've had the assumption that there were, but I've found a lot of conflicting info online suggesting they might not be, and now I'm confused about what work I'd have to do to the points to maximise their efficiency. With previous code 75s, I'd used an accessory switch to power the frog via the wire pre connected, joined the switch and stock rails from beneath, and cut the small tag wire from beneath the front of the frog under the 'gap' to isolate the frog from the switch rails, and use IRJs after the frog to isolate the tail end. I was expecting to not have to do any of that, bar wire the frog up as before to switch the polarity, is this still correct? I was expecting this, and then soldering three pairs of track feeds to the front, and two tail ends post frog was the limit of work I'd need to do for maximum efficiency on these new designs? (I am aware that the three feeds are not strictly necessary with conductive fishplates, but I always have feeds to every section of live track personally) P.S - sorry for the over complicatedly written nature of the question!!

Really appreciate all the replies, it makes fascinating reading!

Thanks for the replies guys. See it’s this apparent huge difference in performance that’s so surprising. On paper the 31 is ‘only’ just short of 300hp down on the 37, indeed two 31s with not far off 3000hp is circa 500hp up on a single 47, yet opinions suggest a single 47 would run rings round a pair of Peds in terms of performance. So it leads me to believe its not all in the figures on paper. It can’t be about tractive effort as itv seems getting a train moving isn’t the issue, it’s getting it up to, and keeping speed with a load on. So where does the poor ol 31 go wrong?

I’m wondering if drivers noticed much difference in the performance characteristics between ‘standard’ 37s and 31s, which of course had the same engine (albeit non intercooled I believe?)? I’m aware of course that 31s were A1A configuration, so I imagine traction was less with the 31, and I also know that 31/4 had issues regarding ETH power never being available for traction regardless of whether ETH was being used.

At the ripe old age of 94 I’m not too certain I wouldn’t be either. I’d probably still be having to work 4 days a week were I not, so not sure which is the lesser of two evils.

Quite. But for some, modelling the mundane is a pleasure in itself. The same rule could apply to plenty of the lifeless concrete slabs born out of the 1960s, yet they have quite a following now among some circles... Just you wait, in 2080 when the latest Higgs bosun powered maglev HS7 trains are stored in their supereco all recycled solar efficient self cleaning glass houses, ‘we’ will be sharing memories and photos of these old oversized garden sheds, reminiscing of how back then things were built right, and trains were ‘proper trains’... etc...

As per the title, I’m trying to build a picture of what freight ran on the Trent valley (Nuneaton area) in the 90s pre privatisation. Regarding container freight was it all (usually) AC electric hauled to Wembley yard? Were there any booked instances of diesel traction? And would I be right in saying that containerised freight to Birmingham from East Anglia at this time didn’t use the Birmingham to Peterborough line due to clearances on the bridges?

My thoughts also, but that would require the loco to run around it’s train at Nuneaton yard as there’s no straight link between the line from Hinckley and the one to Bedworth, I wasn’t sure if this was the case. My period of interest is 1990s trainload era. Interesting reading that though is that the movements to/from Bedworth weren’t just between Immingham which I thought they all were.

Could someone please enlighten me what route the Immingham - Bedworth tanks take through the midlands?