Flying Pig

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

On one boringly long train ride, I even began to plot in my head which places I’d visit in what order, to experience as much as possible in a 24hr time-travel slot, my cover story for being an obvious fish out of water, and how I would obtain currency on the day (pawning something!).

Given that anyone from any time after time travel was invented could visit the same period as you, the likelihood of your meeting any natives at all would seem to be vanishingly small, so this is unlikely to be a serious problem.

On 15/01/2024 at 14:54, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

And it won't be anywhere near as good as the Bugatti streamlined form W1 and P2, simply 'because'.

Naah - the Thompson Pacifics are Hornby's best LNER big beasts.

27 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Or putting it another way - 'We are doing what some faceless (un)Civil Servant has told us to do but I'm not allowed to say that.'

That is quite exciting, in a raising the blood pressure sort of way.

2 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Going back to the subject of tailgating, I do get a fair amount of that, especially on country roads.

They'll sit in my boot with their stupid LED lights on ( Which btw at night tend to white out my lights, so I have to slow down to see where I'm going.) come flying past at the first opportunity, (because that old car is going to hold them up.) dive back in and then have an RBM (Rapid Bowel Movement) when they realise that I was doing about 55 in a 60 zone with bends aplenty and throw out the anchor, ending up moving slower than I was.

Consider yourself fortunate.  I quite often come across people who want to travel faster than me but don't appear to know how to overtake, even on a straight clear road. 

Just got around to browsing this thread, probably much too late, and I notice it seems to be yet another branch terminus made up from first principles (apologies if I've missed any prototype references).  If I were designing an S&D branch on a site this shape, I'd certainly have a look at Wells Friary (minus the GW routes).

http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/gwr/wells.html

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Surely the Great Eastern could contribute an 'E' with ease?

Yup, there are two in 'swede' and two more in 'beet'.  That should be plenty.

3 minutes ago, JohnR said:

A unifrog point is merely a point that can act as either an electrofrog point (where the frog is live depending on the direction the point is set) or as an insulfrog point (where the frog is electrically dead, which can result in a loss of current, perhaps more noticeable with DCC and DCC sound locomotives with short wheelbases).

As I understand, Unifrog is not exactly like either traditional electrofrog or insulfrog, since both diverging roads remain live regardless of the position of the blades.  Both traditional types make one road 'dead' (though the way they do it differs) which is useful on a DC layout but may be undesirable on DCC if features on locos or stock are required to continue operating.  If points have been used for power switching, replacing them with unifrogs will need further thought.

14 hours ago, Blefuscu said:

 

So, the following day I ditched the Pledge windows, added another 0.1mm or so tolerance to the fit and printed a new set of windows.

This time I simply gave them a coat of UV resin from the vat (goodbye brush) and fixed it with a UV torch before 'baking' them in the  Wash n' Cure.

 

I have since perfected this technique with my model cars by fitting the windows while they are still soft, and then glazing both sides with a coat of resin. This makes the fit easier and glues them in place at the same time. Probably a lot stronger Revell Contacta Clear too.

 

Printing the wipers was interesting. They are very very small and might not have been worth the bother. I printed a dozen and broke half the ones the printer didn't! Etched parts were discussed earlier, and might have been a better idea.

 

Should have gone over everything with an air duster before the macro photos...

Great job conveying the character of a Deltic and an excellent finish.

I wonder if @bmthtrains - David can recover any pictures of Cross Street (thread linked, but the pictures were lost in the Crash)? It was a layout in N heavily inspired by the Oxford Road area.   Crucially, it represented only one end of the station and showed the spacious effect that could be achieved that way.  By modelling the entire station with both throats, you have ended up with very short platforms indeed which is a pity given the decent size you have to use.

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

EAMES had a 94xx pannier tank out by May  that used the Tri-ang Chassis though it was £10 (£9/17/6) compared with 29/6 for the Tri-ang 3F  and 56/11  for the Tri-ang TT-3 Castle

That makes you a penny short, Wilkins.

2 hours ago, MarkSG said:

 

Realistically, though, how many people would buy a royal train? Given that it would require new tooling with the associated development costs and hence need a hefty price tag to justify the work. I know we can all be suckers for the "because it's there" appeal of various one-offs and oddities, but perception of value still comes into it. One of the issues with rolling stock in general is that we expect them to be a lot cheaper than locos, because they're not motorised. Which is partly true, but when you're looking at a rake of coaching stock then the total price is going to be pretty hefty. The motor was only a small proportion of the total cost of Bachmann's Blue Pullman. A rake of all-new, but unpowered, coaches isn't going to be significantly cheaper. 

 

That's not to say a royal train pack wouldn't sell, particularly if it included a loco as well as the coaches in order to help justify the cost. But it isn't something which regularly gets wishlisted (unlike, again, the BP, which was probably the most vociferously demanded new product of the past 20 years). So I'd be surprised if internal market research at the manufacturers was flagging it up as a "must do" project.

How well did the Coronation Scot sell?  I don't recall there being a bandwagon for that and I would have thought it had a more restricted appeal than a royal train.

5 hours ago, Captain Slough said:

Airfix's 1977 LMS suburban coach mouldings are the equal of anything made this century,so it wasn't just Mainline,but their stuff was amazing

 

Your job for now is to find a Hornby motorised GWR tender so you can still continue to run it when the Mainline motor eventually disintegrates or grenades itself... which it will...

They were a revelation at the time - correctly proportioned, right shape, proper bogies etc - but they really aren't as good as, say, the newer Hornby Period III non-gangwayed stock.  I'm not sure the difference is worth forty years though.

Also they aren't suburban stock - an odd choice by Airfix.

2 hours ago, moawkwrd said:

 

...

 

This brings me back to the plan;

 

 

...

 

Good plan but it cries out for a single slip where the diamond is to allow for movements from the middle road to the outbound main line (e.g. of released locos heading for the shed).  Not sure what Peco's intentions are in that regard, but the single slip is a massively useful item for modelling traditional British formations.

You could extend the middle road to the buffer stops to hold a couple of vans.  I would also consider putting the sidings on the departure side, accessed by a trailing point where the loco spur is now.  That would allow them to be shunted on the outbound line which is simpler in signalling terms.  You could even put a bay on that side for departures only, once local trains are a thing in TT:120.

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

Pretty much the same with a Deltic-hauled express at Darlington in the 70s.  The train ran over an object on the track dislodging a traction motor casing, which then bounced back down the train closing the brake cock behind the locomotive.  It ran right through the station and overturned a DMU before being stopped by the buffet steward pulling the communication cord.  

The report is here:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=808

37 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

You will have to ask the poster. If they don't have them it's very unlikely that anyone else will.

I don't, at least not anywhere accessible.

8 hours ago, Buckfire said:

Are there still any any pictures of what it would’ve looked like if the LMS bought Castles from the GWR? Just curious. 

Just take a file to a Castle to get it within the loading LMS gauge. However, as mentioned on here before, the railway companies were not allowed to sell new locomotives from their works, so it would be more likely that the LMS would have built the locos themselves based on the GWR drawings, had the GWR been willing to share them.

Years ago there were some images of LMS Castles on one or other generation of RMweb, including a couple I modified from someone elses original (with permission).  Both showed outside valve gear but I gave one a cab and platework in the style of a Horwich 4-6-0 and the other followed Royal Scot era cab and platework styling, wth flat smoke deflectors.  I think the boilers were domed with a top feed, but I'm not entirely sure at this remove. The tender was in the Fowler style like those originally fitted to 6200 and 6201.  To be honest, neither looked quite right, giving the impression of a mutant Jubilee.

14 hours ago, 1andrew1 said:

In its last accounts, Hornby had set up a subsidiary in India. That makes sense as the Airfix kits are manufactured there. I wonder if it might be tempted to launch an Indian outline Hornby range there too? 

 

Aha, now we know what that steampunk business was all about: a practice run for the appliqué bling of an Indian steamer.

An old steam locomotive in India by Eats & Retreats, on Flickr

5 hours ago, Keegs said:

 

Thanks once again Mike, decided to omit the extra siding for now and added the trap, hopefully I've interpreted that signal placement somewhat correctly!:

 

The goods yard seems cramped by its situation between the station approach and  the baseboard edge.  This results in rather short sidings and a lead (highlighted below) that doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Could you move the station building to other platform to give the goods yard more room?

48 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I still think another trailing crossover would be sensible at the other end of the platforms, currently there is no way of running round a train.

e.g. how do you handle a goods train arriving in the down direction?

 

Do you, necessarily?  Couldn't the station goods yard be worked just by up trains and the branch goods (which would return in the down direction)?

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

You must have better eyes than me, those SRS low res diagrams are mostly unreadable

I doubt my eyes are any better, but they do usually show the track layout clearly, which maps don't always.  The rest is pot luck and in this case mostly unreadable as you say.

3 hours ago, Downer said:

They’ve got themselves in a real mess with their original Gresley coach releases. I’m sure a lot of us who bought those in numbers despite the tumblehome and beading issues would like a Composite and Brake Third added to the range, but only - almost perversely - if those errors are persisted with. If corrected, they’ll look all wrong alongside their predecessors.
That wouldn’t be a problem with the Stanier coaches though, where a CK would fill a yawning gap.

There were also some vehicles in the Coronation Scot collection which could be converted into ordinary service stock including, as I recall, a vestibule third which was a very numerous type.  I'm not convinced Hornby are interested though.

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

There was a strange arrangement where what looked like what should be a middle platform line was cut in two with bufferstops at the end of each piece.

Effectively two bays end to end

Diagramatically: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwb/S318.htm

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

This is my crane runner, it has a longer wheelbase which is fixed. It still is able to go through Peco medium points, which makes me wonder why we worry so much about 6 wheeled coaches and wagons?

The Hattons 6 wheelers appear to have fixed outer axles with some sideplay on the middle wheelset, so presumably they wondered the same thing.

Apologies if this has been discussed, but how are goods services going to be arranged?  With your current layout the only way I can see is if the branch goods works from and to a yard along the main line in the down (left) direction.  It would need to set back onto the branch but from prior discussion this doesn't seem to be a problem.

53 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The question I have is 'but does it look better than current RTR OO set track?' That's what it has to beat. It's not competing with flexitrack systems

 

The DCC connection problem is most liely a product of the low uptake of DCC in Japan. Not likely to be a problem if a UK equivalent product is launched

It (or an equivalent range) could look better than current Setrack.  It could also include power buses with better connections between track pieces than can be achieved with just rail joiners, point motors, switched live frogs, optional power routing for DC users and whatever kind of remote point operation the manufacturer chose to install.  It could look good and have reliable plug and play functionality matching what new users expect from their other consumer electronics.

But it would need to be significantly more expensive than current Setrack.

Edit- and to return to the topic, it would probably be a project too far for Hornby in their current circumstances so I wouldn't expect it from them.  TT would have been the place to start if they had wanted to.