Flying Pig

Very sorry to hear that. Geoff's interactions with visitors at shows were exemplary and Tower Pier was always an absorbing layout to watch. Perhaps a note in the obituaries section would be in order?

We get used to the armour plate waist bands on most models of this class, but on the prototype the waist strip was thin metal and at 4mm scale not much more than a thick paint layer.

Horwich pattern, but surely not the same as the Dreadnought which has a very distinctive shape.

4. It's far away.

You might be interested in the discussion of that subject on this recent thread:

Err, btw, that is a streamlined B17 from the Hornby thread.

Some discussion of the Hughes Dreadnought 4-6-0 at the links below. Apart from Cox, nobody seems particularly impressed and while improvements could doubtless have been made to eliminate some of their weak points, I doubt the result would have been better than a Patriot. https://steamindex.com/locotype/hughloco.htm https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=Great_Britain&wheel=4-6-0&railroad=ly#2334

I think CJF designed Minories with the Triang TT Jinty and suburbans in mind. You could add the Brush 2 for a mixed LMR and ER service in the Moorgate mode. Perhaps also the Britannia and some Mk1 stock for longer distance trains. There seems to be a fair amount of used Triang TT-3 around so this is probably a practical project whichever side of the Thames you choose.

But 5.5cm is correct over headstocks, so it looks like someone has either measured that or just scaled the prototype figure. The smaller wagons should be about 4.4cm (17'6") over headstocks if you want to measure them. There seems to be some confusion in Hornby's marketing team over what dimension is being quoted. I wouldn't worry about it.

5.5cm is about right for the prototype's 21'6" over headstocks, so not including couplings.

My dad installed Total AV adblocker as it was heavily advertised (click here to install) and initially very cheap. However the small print advised that the next payment taken would be over £100. I was not pleased and uninstalled the software, but payment was arranged through a card and not a direct debit, so could not be cancelled easily from his end. I urged him to contact his bank (Santander) but he clearly didn't do so, as about a year later they contacted him about a repeat card payment which Total AV were trying to take and asked him if he wanted to proceed, so he was able to block it. We suspect that Total AV are blacklisted by that particular bank, which is very fortunate for Dad. @The Johnster - to repeat what others have said contact your bank immediately. There may be a phone number on your card or you can call 159 and you will be directed to your own bank. My thoughts about those who defraud the vulnerable are not suitable to post here.

If anything, Gazelle looks more like a toy than the original model at the start of the thread does. Also, she is not well laid out for hiding the motor and worm in this case. But she does show the extreme of design possibilities.

The free end of the speedo crank should be on the axle centreline to ensure it and the speedo don't move. Otherwise it will describe a circle as the crank rotates and the speedo will have to follow. The end of a Walschaerts return crank is meant to be off centre so that it does induce motion in the attached rod.

If the stress on the rails is making the gauge narrow, wouldn't relaxing the rail fixings just allow the gauge to narrow further?

How about this one:

The goto inspiration for BR(NE) freight is surely Chris Pendlenton's North Shields. The layout has very little web presence but I found a decent overview here (and I'm sure you have the relevant MRJs). It is pretty complex but things like the main line and loco shed exit could be stripped out to leave the throat of the small marshalling yard that is the heart of the model and its operation. Something interesting could be worked up with available Peco bullhead if you don't want to build points for this one. No problem moving it to a less urban location either.

That sounds like the problem is with the wheels. When you say you replaced the axles, did you buy new complete wheelsets or just axles? If you refitted the wheels they may not be quite square on the new axles. But it is quite possible that some were manufactured slightly off centre or not perfectly circular and will need replacing if you want smooth running.

Does the bogie itself wobble on the track or does it run smoothly and just the coach body wobbles?

That edition also had Oldham Junction which included some interesting design decisions that would never get past the committee on here 😀

Just looked that one up. Average hardware but distinctly above average operation and a very thought-provoking article.

Yeah but... The specific arrangement of the points, 'Minories Eye' apart, is just two crossovers and a bay, which is not quite as basic as possible, but not far off and nothing particular to celebrate. The lack of runround and use of a pilot isn't particularly innovative either. And the operation CJF designed it around was high intensity suburban working, like a sliver of Liverpool Street, with a rapid procession of very similar trains, not requiring much stock*. This is relatively rare to see in model form, most operators choosing a more varied mixed secondary terminus mode as you describe. (*Possibly with the very limited Triang TT-3 range in mind.) So all I'm saying is that perhaps we should not be quite so quick to deploy the Minories tag whenever a smallish terminus appears.

Once you dispense with the signature feature, applying the name Minories (even Minories-style) to a plan seems inappropriate to me, since nothing else in Minories is really original enough to deserve the name. It gets to the point where every plan between BLT and mahoosive is labelled Minories, which imo makes the term so vague as to be almost meaningless.

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.

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

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.