Angus

It always fascinates me that in the UK and Ireland operations on our layouts take a back seat to building them. A quick look through our online forums and the magazines will show very few topics or articles dedicated to the art of "playing" with our creations. To some extent I've put this down to the cliche of the branch line terminus. Whilst conveniently sized, operations are limited to the shuffle on, shuffle round, shuffle off variety. Not very entertaining for any length of time. I have built some small American shortline layouts which create much more purpose to moving the stock around the layout and so become more engaging to operate. Unfortunately such systems are not realistic (with a couple of exceptions) this side of the Atlantic. What I find slightly odd is that when given more space we tend to go for a bigger station rather than more open running/multiple locations. Even when multiple locations are modelled they are operated from the point of view of the Signal man rather than the driver (the operator works at a station, accepting trains from other stations rather than following the train through the various stations). This is compared to our American brethren who have a crew follow the train around the layout. I've always assumed this is down to how we watch the real thing. Over here we tend to stay static in one location and watch the trains come to us whereas on the other side of the Atlantic they seem to chase the trains along the route. I'm guessing traffic density has a lot to do with this. What we lose in our approach is a sense of journey. I've always enjoyed train travel and watching trains from the window, rather being sat in one location and connect more with layouts that replicate this. An early influence was Jan Milham Yaxbury that appeared in the model magazines back in the 80's: http://www.s-scale.org.uk/gallery25.htm Here Jan had modelled an entire branch line so trains moved through the scenery with a sense of purpose rather than just appearing and disappearing off scene. There are obviously other examples (e.g. Richard Chown's Castle Rackrent) but these seem few and far between. I'm in the lucky position of having the space to model this "system" approach. Last year we moved up to the West Coast of Scotland to a house in need of renovation but with two outside stores connected to the main building. When knocked through these gave a railway room 23' x 11.5' space. Other parts of the renovation have taken priority but I'm hoping to get started on the railway room toward the end of next month. This has given me a year or so to plan. The main layout will based on the Callander and Oban line (sorry not Irish! but I am intending to have an Irish layout in the room mounted at a lower level). One criteria I tried to keep to was to have three train lengths between locations to try to replicate that sense of journey and watch trains travel through the scenery. Focus is on the system rather than shunting, but having the trains pass at the various stations along with the local goods stopping and shunting along the way should offer engaging operation. Even then I've still fallen foul of the "cram too much in" sin. As an example below is an early iteration of the plan: I've obviously not achieved the three trains lengths between criteria Loch Awe and Taynuilt and Oban Goods Junction feels just crammed in. In a conversation at our local modellers group one of the group observed he enjoyed operating the Dunallander layout (owned and operated by the 2mm Scale Association's Grampian group. We assist at exhibitions) as it gave the chance to see scale length trains operating at scale speed through open scenery. This reminded me of my original intentions and drove a simplification of the plan removing some stations and creating more space for open running: The jury is still out on the inclusion of the station at Luib. Operationally this was linked to the School train movements at Killin Junction but I may remove this in favour of more open countryside.

It is a skill I need to develop, however, even the most productive person would take years if not decades to reproduce Allen's extensive range, across the wide range of scales he offered. If I do develop the skills to produce etches, I would prefer to focus my time on adding previously unavailable items rather than replicating what had been a available.

Hi Mol, I'm not sure that's what it says, unless you've got further information? There's been quite a bit of confusion with people claiming to have taken on bits of Allen's range, but it usually turns out they've just bought Allen's stock of unsold etches. The RMweb post refers to etches not artwork. I would love to the Worsley work range reappear but losing hope as time passes.

I had quite a few emails conversations with Allen before he shut up shop. I had a large outstanding order with him that he was struggling to fill due to issues with the photo tool (it wasn't any of the Irish stock that was affected). I finished up doing a deal with him to secure his remaining 2mm fine scale LMS kits and sides in lieu of what I actually ordered. The email exchange was a bit hit and miss so I came to the conclusion his health wasn't great. This was just speculation on my part though One thing people miss when talking about etching is the quantity required to make an order viable. The whole sheet needs to be produced which can contain several items. This means if you want an individual coach you have to order the whole sheet (which could be duplicates, something appropriate that may be of use or something else entirely) So the purchaser either needs to stump up for multiple items they don't necessarily want or the supplier has to carry stock that might not get sold. Not a simple as it first appears.

Hi Mayner, There are quite a few of our group who are now producing decent quality prints in 2mm. I suspect this is due to constant fettling to perfect the print, something that wouldn't be viable on a commercial basis, but is encouraging for the hobbiest. Cheers Angus

There has been a bit of a debate going on in our 2mm scale group about the best way to use 3d print technology. The consensus seems to be for wagons a 3d body on an etched chassis with 3d details such as buffer and axle boxes is the ideal. This also assumes you have access to a chassis etch or the skills to draw one up.......

Great view of Dromahair in the top picture. It nicely covers an area that is difficult to see in all the photos I've found of the station. One to log for the future.

Hi David, Thinking some more on this I've realised I am slightly confused by your comment on shortening the dropper. In 2mm the dropper (heavier iron wire) acts as the counter weight to pull the loop down. Even if the loop goes beyond the vertical the dropper will extend back past the vertical and return the loop back to horizontal. If you shorten the dropper surely you would reduce this counter weight effect? This started me thinking that your problem might be that the coupling is set further out relative to the end of the wagon/coach in 7mm. This would allow the loop to pass further through the vertical to the point where the dropper can't act as a counter weight. If so the solution would be to somehow restrict the movement of the loop. Hope the makes sense, it would be easier to explain with a sketch (assuming I had any drawing ability!)

Hi David, As a 2mm scale modeller I've been using DGs for a while now so have experience of my own and those shared by others in conversations amongst other 2mm modellers. I've never used them in 7mm scale though. The loops are recognised as a problem, that said, I don't have much of an issue. Some 2mm modellers just put the loop on one end of their stock, which works if your stock always travels in one direction. If not you are going to have problems due to stock with no loops trying to couple (or have to carefully choreograph the moves). When I first started using DGs I experimented with some soft iron wire for the loops. I thought I was being clever as this meant I could just fold the loop and dropper up out a single piece of wire, no need to solder on a dropper. The wire was thicker though, probably bigger than 0.5mm where the standard 2mm wire is 0.3mm. I found I had a couple of issues: Firstly the loops clashed more causing problems when coupling. Changing back to 0.3mm phosphor bronze wire all but removes the issue. I think the slight spring in the phosphor bronze wire also helps. Secondly the loops didn't drop back as consistently. I suspect this was do to the loop being heavier so the dropper didn't have as much of a counter balance effect bringing the loop down. The wire was also a slightly tighter fit in the mounting hole (but still free to move) so I suspect there was more friction involved. Again, moving back to phosphor bronze wire with an iron dropper resolved this. I've found the loops do pop out occasionally but only if I'm manhandling the stock, I've never had this issue if they are on the track and my fingers aren't involved. As your rakes are short might it be worth trying some 0.3 phospher bronze for the loops? It should be strong enough even for 7mm.

Hi David, a post on RMweb has just reminded me of an issue with DGs. If you have long stock and sharp curves body mounting the couplers can cause derailments. The loop pushes on the coupler vertical of the wagon in front sideways pushing it off the track. With a 2mm scale diesel (about 4" long) if the couplers are body mounted it will push anything longer than a short wheelbase wagon off the track on and A5 point (although I think the curve exiting the point is slightly sharper) I now bogie mount my couplers. It might be worth checking all your stocks works through your point work before progressing any further.

Just measured the wire that comes with the 2mm couplings and it's 0.3mm diameter. I'd guess this would be strong enough for 7mm?

Hi David, DGs are the chosen coupling in 2mm finescale circles with about 70%of people using them. My experience is to use as thin a wire as possible to form the loops. This is better visually but also operates better as the loops slide over one another easier. In 2mm the DGs come with thin phospher bronze wire which is also a bit springy. I'm guessing this also helps.

Just got a copy of the September Railway Modeller. The photos look great, a really good example of how a small layout can appear much bigger than it is.

I notice in the "coming next month" column in this month's Railway Modeller there is a photo of a rather attractive MGWR green loco...... Looking forward to reading this next month!

Chapeau Ben Healy, He deserved the win today.

I'm sorry, I refuse to believe that is a work bench, I can see the wooden surface beneath.....

Hi Darragh, Try: https://www.modelbrickyard.com/en You can customise colour, bond and mortar. Not sure if you will get the shade you are looking for but worth a play if you have't tried.

That looks stunning David. The dark green suites the loco so well.

I which case I must have been sat by you last night and didn't realise. I must make more of an effort to introduce myself! It was a great talk though.

Also not convinced there is anything to "Cash in on" here. Most of the finescale societies (2mm, 3mm, S Scale etc) have produced their own plain track bases. These are all pretty similar, normally six sleepers on a web through which the rails are threaded. The 2mm Scale Association's 8' 6" product is shown above. From memory the development of the tooling for these was a considerable investment that had to be backed by the product development fund financed by the society's membership subs. The only commercial offerings that are similar are from British Finescale who offer a the above for standard N Gauge but for code 40 rails, finer than all commercially available track. They do offer points kits in other scales 00, 00SF & EM but as can be appreciated these are all scales with a large following. I doubt the interest 21mm gauge matches even the smaller of the specialist societies. That's not to say it can't be done. It just needs a co-ordinated effort and investment from those interested.

Hi, just a question I'm struggling to find a definitive answer to. On broad gauge vans what size are the G and S in Great Southern days, the lettering seems to cover 3 planks so I am assuming 18" but we all know what assumption do..... Thanks

Hi David, Great progress with the changes, I'm looking forward to seeing the transformation as the Swilly (my spell checker altered that to Willy which would have taken this post off in whole other direction.....!) has always been a favourite of mine. When transferring drawings to plastic sheet I found I could scan a drawing then print it out onto the plastic sheet. My cheap home ink jet printer will feed 20 thou (0.5 mm) plastic sheet without a problem. Leave the print to dry and apply some sealing spray otherwise the print just rubs off when you touch the sheet. I always check the print size on a piece of paper first as they often need rescaling slightly. Onviously this is limited to A4 size (unless you've got a posher printer) which isn't much of a restriction in 2mm. It does save a lot lot of faffing about with pencil and paper, and avoids my inevitable inconsistency.

Thanks GSR800, I did read the reference. I'm more wondering what the source was. Rumours will always abound, not all have any truth.

I've been watching this with interest as the LNWR represents one of my main interests and I've slowly been accumulating 7mm scale kits and models for a future layout. As a result I've also got a fairly extensive library of LNWR books. The MGWR also represents a key interest in Irish railways. I missed the reference to talks about a merger in Ernie Shepherd's book, but having taken a quick look through my LNWR books I can't find any reference. The only references to the MGWR are in conjunction with the construction of North Wall and the connecting branches, all of which were built after the MGWR line. The LNWR was an investor in the Dublin & Drogheda but divested it's shares taking ownership of North Wall Station in the process on the formation of the GNR. I'm left wondering what the source of the reference to a merger was. I'll ask a question on the LNWR Society forum and update with any information found.

I'd be happy to take a couple if it gets this over the line.