Phil Parker

That's my understanding.

I'd agree with you about resin casting - it's likely to be far cheaper than 3D printing too. A few years ago, when the Airfix pontoon bridge was unavailable, I cast a few copies for a project I was working on. Details on my blog: Making the mould: http://philsworkbench.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/resin-casting-part-1-making-mould.html Making the castings: http://philsworkbench.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/resin-casting-part-2-making-castings.html If you want to sell them, you'll need approval from whoever owns the masters (Locomotion?) but they might be happy to do this. However, my understanding is that you can copy something like this for yourself so just take your APT apart and get the mould gunk out!

What's that loco? One of the most popular questions asked last weekend was, "What's that nice industrial loco?". I'd posed our only steam engine in the middle of the layout as it's more interesting than an 03 or 05 diesel, the other motive power to hand. Since we weren't running the yard, it's compromised operational status (I broke a wire while fiddling trying to fit a DCC chip, another job for the list!) didn't matter and the layout looks better with a loco visible. The answer is, it's an ARC Models Barclay kit. A full build will appear in the January issue of BRM but basically, it's a loco kit that anyone could assemble. The resin body sits on top of an Electrotren 0-6-0 chassis. Construction is simple, the hardest job being adding the handrails. The RTR chassis ensures you end up with working model too as long as I've not been fiddling with it. The next question, of course, is, "What does BUDC stand for?". I'll answer that in the article...

Well, Ruston Quays is off to Peter borough this weekend. I've been working hard to make it look something approaching finished, but there's still a long way to go. Biggest job has to built a lighting rig. A couple of sheets of MDF, lengths of plywood and two Homebase spotlight units will now see 150 watts of illumination thrown on the scene. Needless to say, I've not quite got as far as painting this but at least you should be able to see the model and next month, we might even overcome the gloom of the NEC! Technology has been a bit of a problem for me. The plan to be DCC'd fell through when I found that the chips I had been given and the sockets in the locos were different sizes. I'll be picking people's brains about the best chips for a Bachmann 03, Heljan 05 and Electrotren 0-6-0 steam tank. In the meantime, a 1980s DC controller will allow the yard to be operated. Our electric uncoupling system hasn't done to well either. Yesterday I made a quick trip down the local model shop to buy some Peco uncoupling ramps (4, which was handy when I filled one with superglue) which do the job but look pug ugly. The electrical version looked better but seemed to suffer from interferance issues causing 1 unit to go haywire and another to break in the up position. Talking to friends, servo based systems can have problems in this area, not something I've noticed in model boats so presumably it's the electronics? With most of the construction finished, I'm moving on to detailing. Static grass is being puffed from a bottle to represent weedy growth and fiddly plastic bits are being made up from packets. A box of HO scale details was bought at Scaleforum to add a lot of this but I'll be perusing the trade to add more bits and bobs. If you are heading to the show over the weekend, please drop by and say hello.

Thanks Julie. I've seen a lot of businesses under arches, my local MOT place and the guy who fixes my car afterwards. The names are a bit of fun, just need a mini Andy to stand outside. Don't worry about the name confusion either. We called it Edgewood 2 for a long while. In fact the directory I save the files into on my PC still has the name...

"Bench tools"? What bench tools do you need for kitbuilding? I've never felt the need for any unless you count a rivet tool - and even then the Eileens Emporium drop rivet tool is hardly "bench". Just curious.

Yeah, stop working on all those model railway products and concentraite on developing the website - which works fine in IE9 by the way.

A couple of electronics questions. This months article on wiring the Gaugemaster Shuttle system has seen a couple of questions come my way. Question 1 - believe I am correct in saying that your 2nd circuit diagram showing 3 alternative stopping points will not work as you intend. The train will always stop at the 1st track break and, if the switch is open, it cannot be driven out. The two switches should be in parallel with their respective diodes, so that when made will allow the train to run on to the next break; but cause the train to stop at that break if the switch is open. I see the confusion here. The diodes shown on the plan are only representative. Sadly, there is no symbol for a switchable diode so I had to improvise. Drawing the full diagram by each break would be cluttered, especially when the plan is reproduced at a small size. However, I did provide the full details in caption 3 of the article, along with a photo of the switch fitted with a diode. Question 2 - Does the SS1 actually swap the points over ? Or dose it need to have more diodes in it to have more than one train ? The SS1 (The Shuttle control unit) just makes the train go back and forth. Point switching is a seperate manual operation. Only one train can operate at a time, to use 2, I'll leave one isolated in the platform and the other platform road and fiddle yard are effectively a single length of track .

The problem is that I can't design a layout for everyone. Nor am I suggesting they would copy it exactly. That's why we gave over quite a lot of page space in the magazine explaining the process by which we came up with the design. For the purposes of the series, we need to pick a plan and build it. Preferably one that doesn't take too long but incorporates plenty of different techniques. The other thought it that a lot depends on what you enjoy. If it's operating than yes, long term you'll want more trackwork and a larger space. If your pleasure is in the building rather than operating then track doesn't matter as much, you'll be enjoying putting the scene together. For me, the modelling is more fun than the operating, even on a complex layout. Both this and Edgeworth are also designed to be starter layouts. They could be built quickly and then you move on with a bag full of skills aquired. As it happens, both are fun to operate - Inglenook puzzles have amused people for far longer than their apparently limited potential would suggest. But it's still best to start small rather than diving straight into the "dream" layout. And of course, there are lots of plans books available already, including those by Mr Lunn if anyone fancies something more ambitious.

There is a fiddle yard behind the main warehouse for the upper level. Admitedly, it's only a length of track but that's all I need - the important point is I don't want exciting operation up there, I want a shuttle unit (as shown in the current mag) to do all the work. We're not going to have lots of different trains up there. Now, for a home layout, or one that can bring several operators to shows, then a more extensive yard would be a nice idea. Of course you might then want steam trains, which means the station needs a release crossover... The lower level yard is stunted for a similar reason. We're going to let visitors to the show operate it as an Inglenook shunting puzzle. You have to be very strict about siding length and configuration to make this a challenge. It's also one of the reasons we don't have inlaid track. A bigger yard would need to be operated by someone who knew what they were doing, or at least it would be if I'm taking the thing out to show people. Operator training during quiet times at shows on a reasonably simple layout is one thing but at peak times you need a team who know what they are doing to entertain the visitors. I'd agree that an extra 2 foot of space could make a difference. The RQ design citeria are deliberatly strict - it's a one man exhibitable layout that will allow me to spend lots of time chatting and answering questions rather than getting hands-on with the controller. I'm delighted if anyone is inspired to do something along the same lines. One thing we found with Edgeworth was that people were impressed with the amount we crammed in a small space. They would start talking about building something similar and then say they had a little bit more area to play with. I'd then delight in explaining how you could make an even better Edgeworth with the extra space. Key thing is, if I work to the minimum space, most people can find the same or more at home. That way they feel their layout can be even better than the one in the mag. If they have to cut space then the tendency is to feel your model isn't as good, even if it is, and I don't want that. I want people building models.

Sorry, I was a little unclear. I was refering to normal main line railways, NOT preserved lines. If you model a preserved line then then I suspect the rules for using these things are a bit looser than anything owned by Network Rail or BR. My reasoning is that the trolley would have to occupy a block to avoid it tangling with a normal train. It's slow speed would mess up the timetable. However, I'm no expert and would welcome someone who knows about the trolley use on steam-era railways clarifying the rules.

And I built a whitemetal kit years ago - I thought it was Springside but if it was, it isn't in the range now. I found mention of a Nu-Cast one though, again not currently available. And if you prefer resin, DC Kits - http://www.dckits-devideos.co.uk/shop/dc_kits/kits/locomotives_coaches_departmental/wickham_s_type_27_motorised_ganger_trolley_kit_trailor_unmotorised_.php with sides, motor and no trailer. In fact, there is a very helpful thread on this very forum: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48551-wickham-trolleys/

Unless anyone only researches the prototype via the Bachmann catalogue, they'll have known about the Wickham for many years so why would anyone produce a new chassis now? Why not for one of the kits already available? My thought is that while a fiddly drive system is OK for model engineers, in a world of people who struggle to plug details into bufferbeams, such a mechanism would have a pretty short life. Bachmann have to make a model that will cope with being treated as a novelty, has to deal with dead-frog points and must be relatively cheap. I'm sure more R&D could give a chassis with a tiny motor so the trailer wasn't needed, but the costs of this would have to be loaded onto this model as it's unlikely anything else in the range would make use of them. Even the 009 & On3 stuff is bigger! How many would buy a tiny single car unit costing a couple of hundred quid? As sellers of N gauge have found, UK modellers think price should be proportional to size and moan when a 2mm loco costs as much as a 4mm one. Another thought is that most people aren't going to run this prototypically. Surely they only found themselves on track during engineers posessions of a line. We'll be running them in between normal trains. If the top speed of the Wickham is too slow it s going to find itself rammed by a Railroad Flying Scotsman on some layouts!

Why would the die hards wait for the Bachmann model? The body is available in whitemetal and etched brass kits. If you can build the chassis, the upperworks won't scare you.

Are there though? I've never seen a working 4mm Wickham trolley and they are so novel, I'd have expected to see at least one. There was an article in a very old RM but that model used a trolley with a big load on the back to hide the motor. Making a working machine with side covers down would be reasonably easy, that's not what people want to see. They want open sides, leaving little space for motor and gears. I agree with Chris, having got my hands on the test shot, it's going to sell like hot cakes no matter how many people post they aren't buying one. A week after it hits the shops, you'll see them on layouts up and down the country, probably being chased by an APT-E. If I have a complaint about the model, it's that fuggly plug and socket in the middle. The rest I could live with.

Impressive that you know Bachmann's capabilities better than they appear to do. The point is that if the Wickham is no good then it leaves the field open for those capable of building a working trolley-free version to show off. After all, Bachmann have to design something capable of being mass-manufactured and assembled down to a price. The scratchbuilder isn't constrained in the same way. For a start, they won't have to use any of that flimsy plastic. Metal parts should be thinner and make the job even easier.

Those point templates are one of the greatest aids to layout building but very few people seem to know about them. Personally, I find messing around with full sized bits of paper much easier and more satisfying than anything on screen. Do try to leave the plan with points Blu-tacked in position for a few days too. It's amazing what you see if you go away and come back to it after a couple of days. If you still think it looks good after a night or twos sleep then there's a good chance you'll still be happy with it in a few months.

That's a reasonable price for good looking boards. I always argue good baseboards are a better investment than one more loco - firm foundations give you the best chance of a good layout. I'm no carpenter so this seems like money well spent to me. Good luck with the layout. Let us know how you get on.

Those look nice. Who did you get them from?

Excellent! And if there are any questions you want to throw my way, please do. Anything to help.

This is pretty much my philosophy for articles. The more readily available the products, the easier people can have a go themselves. That's not to say we shouldn't use new an inovative items - after all part of the role of a magazine is to showcase novel items to the readers. One of the benfits of BRM is that they give me a wide brief and let me get on with a project. Sometimes it's based around a novel item such as the Magnorail cyclist kit or the Make Your Mark rail crane, in which case we make it clear where everything comes from. I'm certain that inlaid track will be a feature of a future article and probably discussions at shows, in which case I already have some places to point people at.

The point is we are working several months ahead on this layout so I'm not going to rip it up and re-build just to incorporate and promote your product no matter how many times you mention it here, or e-mail the editor to try and get the plans changed. Sorry, it's not practical, I've nailed everything down, wired it and stuck ballast everywhere. The reasoning behind the plan has been explained in the magazine and expanded on in this thread. The thread itself is to dicuss the layout we are building and answer questions thrown up by the build by anyone who fancies trying to do something similar. This worked well for the Edgeworth thread, hence the repeat with RQ. As Andy says, we've looked at inlaid track in the past and will do again, but when designing the layout we considered an awful lot of options. I had several long chats with Paul where were added and removed features, then we arrived at a plan and any tweaks are now minor.

Sorry about that. the thread spiralled out of control before I posted the plan: This is Paul Lunn's version of my rather angular original. Needless to say, I've fiddled with it even more now building is well advanced! Nothing major, just a few tweaks to building sizes.

That's a neat fix, but I was refering to re-railing in the visible area of the layout . Mind you, I can think of plenty of people who would benefit from having a fiddle yard with a set-up like this so they can get the things on the track in the first place!

That's the point of BRM projects. If we can inspire someone to have a go then they have worked. I know a lot of people looked at Edgeworth and realised they had the space to build an interesting model railway. Plenty have mentioned that they are trying a similar project, which makes me feel really chuffed. RQ is the same. For a start, it's even smaller and and Moxy says, there were plenty of locations around the country that looked a lot like it. As I like industrial layouts, I look forward to lots of gritty urban models appearing at future shows!