invercloy

Thanks, makes sense reading it again, but wasn’t sure if you meant the real motive power or yours.

On 23/03/2021 at 20:10, jamieb said:

I remember reading years ago that a 3ft gauge system was planned for Skye and formulated a small 'Talisker' layout  in my head.

Motive power would have been based on the Yankee tanks, possibly smaller 2-4-0 versions,similar to the IoM locos.It never got beyond the sketchpad stage though 

Where do you have the info on the motive power from? I've done LOADS of digging into this proposal, seen the documents lodged with the Board of Trade that are now in the National Archives, but never found any firm information on the motive power. There was provision for steam or electric, and it was 3'6", but I've never seen anything on the HLR relating to motive power.

I own a copy of the Rural Transport committee documents describing those lines. There's definitely some modelling potential in there!

I am, Ken, though I VERY rarely post on here nowadays.

In answer to the question, been there, done that, exhibited it, got the t shirt Although, my version went the other way - the plans were for a 3'6" gauge line, and I modelled it in 2'6" gauge using 009. 

My layout is the one that features in the photos in the RM article.

There were several proposals for a railway line on Skye, so you needn't model the narrow gauge one when there was actually a standard gauge proposal - opposite the Kyle station and operating up to Portree. It was proposed by the Highland Railway, so if you went for that you could have the fun I've had and imagine what could have been for one of the other proposals.

More info on what I got up to on my website: https://hlrco.wordpress.com 

Here's a teaser: 

image by invercloy, on Flickr

We've just launched a Narrow Planet Facebook page. 

https://www.facebook...027?sk=timeline

Obviously we'll continue to update you with developments here, but if you want another way of seeing what we're up to please like and share our page.

Heljan kindly provided the details to the 009 Society for display at the Convention, which I pulled together into the display along with the CAD images. They mentioned that the the price is APPROXIMATE, but all other mentions of price have been in the same ballpark.

£185 seems perfectly reasonable to me when you consider that a Backwoods Miniatures kit (which is the most comparable in terms of quality based on the details Heljan have provided to date) costs £92 and that requires lots of soldering of bodywork and chassis and lots of time invested in it before you get it to run, let along paint, details etc.  

It's a bold venture by Heljan, and from the details provided so far they seem to be heading in a very good direction in my opinion. 

I've just taken delivery of a tender drive unit from Union Mills for a 009 tender loco scratchbuilding project.  Being a slightly different project, Colin was quite helpful in advising me on what he could offer. I posted him a cheque late last week and I received my chassis today - great service.

Does anyone have any photos of their chassis after DCC conversion? I'd be interested to see any slightly different approaches to the one in the DCC fitting guide.

It takes time to produce a model .Its called manufacturing but few in this country have heard of it after Thatcher "saved " us .Peco needed customers to know that a loco  to match their rolling stock and track  was on the drawing boards and a reality .Hence Railway modeller announced it.A lot of it is all new as well .We dont know if the model will throw rods ,shred gears and wobble   yet ,all considerations when developing a tiny  out side cranked miniature .The Roco BR 99 ran sweetly for a while I gather and then went awol. Exciting though .Do you buy unseen and maybe buy a dud design or do you wait for all the other suckers to buy it and wait to see what happened...and miss the chance to get one at all ....O ye of little faith . :-)

Little faith? Absolutely not! I'm merely asking as I didn't know if it was usual for periods of radio silence. Remember this is a new experience for us 009 modellers

I've heard more info since posting my query which is reassuring.

Has anyone heard anything on this project? It's gone awfully quiet... Is this normal practice after an announcement of a model until a prototype is shown? (spot the 009 modeller who hasn't bought an RTR model for over a decade so can't remember how marketing works )

I think this is very bad news, and should be stopped . ...

No, it's good news, welcome to the dark side!

Generic doesn't bring in the collectors market which Heljan have pursued with the BR prototypes and I'd guess this model will fall in the same marketing bracket as far as Heljan are concerned. Appeal to NG modellers and those who collect something different. Generic locos are pretty well covered in 009 so going for something iconic makes far more sense and as Keith mentioned if they'd chosen one of the 060 prototypes they'd have been told it was an obscure prototype!

I completely agree, Paul, the collectors market is a good draw for an L&B loco over and above a generic design.  There's also the option for anyone with a Southern Railway layout to have a feeder line in the same delivery, not to mention the same scenario for any layout using the original L&B livery to represent a freelance line.

You may have seen I have exactly the same objections to Peco's offering the L&B stock. I would also argue just who is going to recognise anything that last run in the 1930's - only modellers already focused on the line, certainly not the trainset market. As I said I welcome RTR OO9, just think that this prototype is wrong. I guess time will tell how much of a success it turns out to be, and if the only buyers are those interested in boxes in a collection, aficionados of the L&B, and those so desperate to run OO9 that they'd buy anything even if they run it out of context.

To be honest, I don't 'recognise' anything that was running before the early 80s as that's when I was born, so that rules out most of railway history... I don't see why date has anything to do with it.

I disagree about the 'trainset' market, look at how many 00 layouts have a narrow gauge feeder line (as per my point above), this release will probably increase that, and I have a feeling that's where a good majority of the sales could be from - 00 layouts with 009 appearing as a special add on feature to an already extant layout.

Look at the success Bachmann have had with the 0n30 range, that started with one loco, RTR 009 has to start somewhere, like I said before, it's just good that Peco provided the impetus with the stock and Heljan have begun working on a loco.  

There are many many more 0-6-0s, a generic 'catalogue' design would probably fit in more with what Kenton is thinking of, and to a degree he has a point in that its less line specific and therefore less limiting in terms of stock it will look 'right' with.

But conversely, and arguably more importantly, a catalogue design wont be as instantly recognisable as an L&B manning wardle, and wont have the added pull of the Peco stock perfectly matching it, or a prototype running at the Festiniog or L&B (soon hopefully!).

At the end of the day we're getting an RTR 009 loco, its just great that someone has finally taken the plunge.

2-6-2s derail? Only if they're poorly designed or running track that's a tad on the lumpy side, I've never had issues with 2-6-2's. The new Peco points are much smoother and hardly cause stock to 'crash' through them, in fact I can propel (with a 4-4-0T) a rake of 10+ unweighted Parkside Dundas wagons with no issue.  The new track is a big improvement in terms of running, so much so that I've ripped up the only two 12" radius points I had and replaced them with the new ones.

Again, as it's your opinion I don't think you can say the prototype is 'wrong', but rather 'not what you would have chosen'.  

What a refreshing layout thread! It's really made me think about how much I spend on things and what alternative materials I could use to achieve the same results.

Definitely worthy of exhibiting all round the country to inspire others. Don't worry about 5 wagons or point operation, it really ought to inspire lots of people to get building.

Thanks for one of the most enjoyable threads I've ever read on any version of RMweb!

Yes they are. I think Paul is due to be at ExpoNG this Saturday.

Contact details are available on several threads on http://ngrm-online.com

I had a really enjoyable Saturday at Goodwood Festival of Speed, the theme this year was 'quantum leaps forward in motorsport', as well as there being celebrations for the 100 years of the Indy 500.

Here are some snaps of the rather nice machinery on show:

Porsche 917K

Sir Stirling in the Ferguson-Climax 'Project 99', the first, and last, 4WD car to win a formula one race.

Bugatti Type 45

Lotus Cosworth 49B

Renault RS01

Peugeot 405 T16 GR 'Pikes Peak' This video makes a Peugeot 405 seem less lame.

Auto Union Type C

50 years of Jag E type statue

Mercedes 300SL and the new SLS AMG

Senna's Lotus F1

There was loads of modern exocita there too, including the Veyron Super Sport:

Ken Block was doing all sorts of mad things in his Gymkhana Fiesta - not heard of Ken Block?

The Red Sparrows were there too

There are a whole load more photos on my flickr account here.

Dunbracken

009 layout built on an ironing board. Coastal terminus of the Glencloy Light Railway. This layout won the 2009 Reinier Hendriksen Trophy for Achievement in Freelance Narrow Gauge Modelling.

Topic here: http://www.rmweb.co....ch__1#entry8764

More details here: http://hlrco.wordpress.com/dunbracken/

Isle Ornsay, terminus of a proposed narrow gauge line on Skye. Modelled in 009 to represent nominal 2'6" gauge.

Based on details found in the National Archives of the proposal, the layout is being built up around the history up to the point where the plans were abandoned. The layout is set in the NBR operated period of 1913.

More info on my blog: http://hlrco.wordpress.com/

I can't get over the feeling of "why are they not on RMWeb"

There are lots of answers to that.

But as you've said it's ideal for those of us who aren't interested in standard gauge stuff. Chop all that out on RMweb and it's SLOOOOOOW compared to NGRM.

No further news of chassis sources on NGRM. Why not just build 2?

If it is anything like the document that I found for the HLR then it will include the suggested method of motive power, gauge, provision for waiting areas and platforms at stations, signalling, requirements for turntables (or not), any limitations on the areas that could or couldn't be worked in, and then all the "legalese". Well worth going to look at if you want to be accurate in your portrayal of things.

Finding the documents for the HLR has helped me determine what Isle Ornsay would have looked like, what facilities it would have had and what stock might have run there.

Do you know if a survey was carried out of the line?

I found out about a proposed line on the Isle of Skye and have tracked down drawings in the National Archives which has REALLY helped me plan a layout: http://hlrco.wordpress.com

Might be worth a look on their site too to see if you can find any for this line.

Friso, have you come across NGRM (http://ngrm-online.com) ? It's a great narrow gauge specific forum which will have many more 0-16.5 modellers that you can question about various things. Lots of the questions you are asking have already been covered on there in one form or another.

I like the sound of this project, look forward to reading more.

Well, THAT forum, despite having to register for is definitely worth it in my opinion, that's most of the reason why my post count and number of visits to HERE have dropped quite so much

I was only suggesting it as you'd have contact with more people who own the chassis.

Glad you've found the post I wrote some time ago.

 

I guess the circuit could be removed and replaced with a simple resistor to limit the voltage. In a similar way to the Nigel Lawton & Meridian motors.

 

Sadly. but typically, the instructions with the Lister kit are totally blank in this respect, not indicating what should be done

Kenton, I believe several people have mentioned matters relating to this on the relevant NGRM thread, might be worth a look?

We are if you really need two of them I admit.

If you import them be sure to let us know!