Flying Pig

16 hours ago, Artless Bodger said:

Peugeot 205 diesel, had an electrical box over one lamp, which needed a spanner to remove it, then the wires were not long enough to lay it sensibly aside so you needed an extra hand to hold it out of the way

I once had to change a glowplug on a 205 diesel.  Directly under the high pressure fuel lines so you couldn't get a socket on it; about 30° of travel on a spanner (I didn't have a ratchet) and cross-threaded by whoever installed it.

41 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

Indeed, the original plan was for TT, if I remember correctly...

The article in April 1957 Railway Modeller gives dimensions for both 00 and TT-3.

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

With Peco streamline "medium" 3ft radius points the comparison looks like this and the Minories version does have more of a flow to it and main line coaches are less likely to experience apparent (or actual) buffer locking.

Operationally, and in signalling both versions are identical.

Somehow the Minories version manages to look more complex than it actually is and has a more 'big station' atmosphere.  When straightened, the very basic nature of the layout becomes obvious.

Look up BT Call Protect.  1572 is the number to access and control it.  Has this feature perhaps just been activated on your account?

5 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

To make it into a G5 replace the wheels with 20 mm Markets and axle adapter bushes. This will give it the smaller 5 foot drivers of the G5 and lower the over high footplate of the old Tri-ang Hornby model.

 

I think Markets also do a fatter axle for fitting into the T-H chassis blocks.

The cab shape is so unmistakeably Scottish that even being overwidth it suggests the NBR type much more strongly than a Worsdell design. Overall the model doesn't really say G5 very effectively and imo would be happier pretending to be an NBR than an NER loco.

 If you wanted to work on the body, the simplest thing would be to add a layer of plastic sheet to widen the tanks and then round off the top edges.  The dome could also be replaced (it's quite untidily fitted) with a more typical "Drummond" design.  But then you would need to repaint and honestly I think the model is probaly best left as it is.

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Starting a load of coal from Snowdown would have required quite a fair bit of grunt - far less once on the move.

 

Grunt in this case is not power, it is tractive effort.  However in you are correct in that TE varies with traction current, so the driver would need to handle the loco carefully on starting a heavy train if there was a lower current limit when working on the pantograph.

On 25/01/2024 at 20:49, Wickham Green too said:

Would it make sense to design one specially for lighter use though ..... I say design - they may have been off the shelf items from whoever supplied pans to Blackpool Trams etc. 

 

But were they lighter anyway ? - don't forget the 71 was a considerably more powerful loco than a 76 and working on half the voltage would have taken twice the current per kW. 

Relatively little power at yard speeds where the pantograph was used since

     power = tractive effort x speed

What about about a Sentinel-style contraption?  True Sentinels didn't have rod-coupled wheels, but you could claim it was built on the frames of a more conventional loco.  The body could be very simple.

53 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

I'm hoping that the moulding marks (including the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock ones on the boiler), gaps all over the place and general wonkiness are a result of this being a pre-production / livery sample. It does say the ropey handrails have been referred back for further work. 

 

I see the bling brush hasn't been binned yet. At the moment fixing the old one is still my preferred option. 

 

(Come on Accurascale, you know you want to ...)

I agree the front frame extensions need work, but I'm struggling to see any moulding defects in the boiler.  Do you mean the washout plugs near the firebox?

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

possibly thanks to the T-H M7 this wheel arrangement has always been a 'Southern Fancy' in my mind.

Quite a number of 19th Century locomotive engineers want a word.  Mr Stirling looks especially peeved.

18 minutes ago, JimC said:

Actually I kinda wonder if in some respects Collett might have been better on the LMS? He was very much a details man, and might have succeeded better in getting the LMS drawing offices to abandon some of their more dubious detail design. 

I think there's an argument that, in his desire not to be seen as just importing GWR, Stanier was sometimes a little too tolerant of mediocre designs/existing practice from his drawing offices. 

Can you expand on that?  What do you think were the dubious aspects of LMS design that continued under Stanier? How could Collett have done things differently?

1 hour ago, TravisM said:

that J78’s were a northeast loco

Apparently they were, but they looked like this.  The Bachmann loco is of course a J72, also originally an NER loco, but later used more widely on LNER lines.  But location needn't matter much, as a simple layout without many identifying featres can move about to a greater or lesser extent - see this thread.

A look through the Micro layouts etc section of the Forum will probably throw up some inspiration.

With that cab it looks more like one of the NBR 0-4-4Ts

https://www.lner.info/locos/G/g7.php

42 minutes ago, alexl102 said:

At risk of upsetting someone here... I'm no expert on these but when photos of the first  painted samples were released, quite a lot of people were absolutely panning them - buffers were oversized, liveries inaccurate, various other complaints. Looking at the images now available, have these issues been addressed? They're cute locos but something about them looks off in the photos and I can't put my finger on what!

 

Have there been any images of more recent models than the livery samples?  Any photos taken at shows almost certainly show the same items, problems and all.  We will probably have to wait for the production run to see what they have done with the liveries (and there will no doubt be review samples sent ahead).

9 hours ago, SRman said:

It can be too quiet!! I recorded this one at Doncaster in 1999. I have yet to find a sound project that includes this racket. 🤣🤣

That'll be a Farish one with the crankpins rubbing on the platform.

Is it necessary to remove the tarnish before painting?  See @Miss Prism's reply in this old thread.

13 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Agreed as shown, although I think you actually only need a BYA/loco length for the spur itself, as long as there's length to run around siding access? 

Yes - about a foot I reckon from the very limited information I can find online.

20 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Please excuse the presentation - conditions here not condusive to the accurate drawing of neat lines - but hopefully the below is a legible alternative footprint of the same features:

 

I suspect the track formation on the RHS (from the edge: LH curved to double slip and 24° crossing to RH to 12°/24° crossing depending on alignment) would take up significantly more space than on the sketch, but less than you have available.

 

I thought it worth trying something on paper because whilst you have a really good handle on your trackwork I remained unconvinced about the use of scenic space. Not that it's 'better' (whatever that means!), but hopefully it's helpful to see another option for the layout of main scenic elements.

 

HTH

 

Schooner

Difficult to say for sure from a sketch, but I've a feeling the headshunts would be too short to shunt a large wagon like a BYA between the two sides of the main loop (which appears to be necessary for siding access).

11 minutes ago, Barry O said:

What would you do the Hornby oA3 as they have just changed that?

They missed a trick or two when they did it.  The motion is still very generic and the motion bracket and expansion link in particular are awful and have needed addressing for several iterations of the model - it's shown up badly by the A2s and the forthcoming Black Five.  The Black Five has noticeably finer bogie wheels too, though I'm waiting for tales of woe when it is run on older points.  A few tweaks below the running plate would really lift the A3.

1 hour ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

Flying pig. The arch can also be built in to halves. Bit like a flying buttress. You can just about get a single engine under the middle of the arch at ground level. It would be possible to use it in say a cutting where it could be raised up a bit. I find it odd that this was made but they did not make a large tower. There was an arch built into the town walls at Conwy in 1848 that looks a bit like the Metcalf arch. But as I said this was a much later addition to allow the railway in to the town. The two mediaeval looking ends to the railway bridge were built when the bridge was built. The railway really only skirted round the out side of the castle

Ah, my mistake, it was the town wall at Conwy. As at York for the original station, though that didn't require a raised section.

But if the Metcalfe item is too small for trains, what does it represent?

1 hour ago, cypherman said:

The only kit I think is a bit un needed is the large arched foot bridge

Is that meant for trains where the ruins have been violated by the railway, as at Conwy for example?

8 minutes ago, MJI said:

Quite a few differences between MR and LMS 2P.

Indeed and the MR 483 survived remarkably late and hasn't been done so perhaps the one for somebody to choose (a surprise omission from Bachmann's Midland collection, actually).

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

If the last several pages on this thread are anything to go by, do steam-era fans think there's no point even making suggestions for future Accurascale products?

 

There's only one DMu I'd buy, and that's been near the top of the polls for years, to zero effect.

 

What hope for those classes that haven't?

 

John

The thread is cracking on for 180 pages and Fran has recently stirred the MU pot, but there are plenty of steam era suggestions prior to that.

However, I'm happy to spin my crackly old disc again (at 78rpm):

- LMS general merchandise opens and vans, particularly on clasp-braked fitted underframes;

- LNER/BR 21t coal hoppers.

And if you want a loco, imo the big hole is a decent Midland or LMS 2P, though I don't see a huge demand for one. 

9 minutes ago, NZRedBaron said:

As for me; I'll take what's probably the boring but safe option; modern video camera and a RADAR gun, and then set up along various places and times, to see if City of Truro / Flying Scotsman / Papyrus / etc. actually did make their record breaking runs.

On what planet is that safe?!  Measure the wrong answer and you'll be lynched when you get home.

21 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Thinking about, which is probably not a good idea, if time travel was invented, presumably the technology, and all other technology, would diffuse backwards in time, so that very quickly all times would actually be pretty much the same, and technological progress across all time would be led by a sort of spearhead of the furthest future, which would itself be ever-accelerating as the back diffusion built a higher platform from which to launch each age.

 

A bit like how travel in space has led to all places becoming more and more alike, every high street the same in every town in the country, and aa discarded empty Coke tin in every conceivable place on the planet.

 

So, pretty quickly, it wouldn’t be worth the bother of going to 1900, because it would be just like now, although now itself wouldn’t be like now now, if you see what I mean.

 

 

 

 

Hence CAMTIM. For the Cathedral of Chalesm, read all your favourite loco classes when EMD and Siemens start exporting to the past.

The what-if really needs to be: what if time travel were invented for you and your friends only and none of those annoying paradoxes and side effects occurred?  Then we can stop worrying about the details.