Brack

Don't do this. Look for some calibration prints and take the time to do them properly, tweaking settings until they turn out perfect. Its rubbish because you wsnt to make actual models, but the recommended settings in my experience don't ever work. Something like the ameralabs town or the cones of calibration https://ameralabs.com/blog/town-calibration-part/ https://www.tableflipfoundry.com/3d-printing/the-cones-of-calibration-v3/ Also make sure you have a consistent tempetature over 20°C for printing. Your resin, mixes of resin, age of resin, age of screen/uv lights all make the exposure time shift a bit, so learning to calibrate properly will really help as basically your printer will perform a little differently to everyone elses. Might be worth slowing the retraction speed/time a little too. A lot of the youtube videos on this sort of stuff are 90% unwatchable rubbish, but there is good information and tips in the other 10%

A 1:1 scale J26 would be popular.

The Y7 was done in FUD. The laser sintered nylon can't produce detail or dimensions accurately enough for small scales - i only allowed WSF printing for my models in 1/24 and bigger, basically because the price was enormous in other materials. Agreed - i made fittings from my NG designs available separately to help people. I started by designing one small bagnall, then realised that the manufacturers had used the exact same cylinders, smokebox door, chimney, steam turret/safety valves, reverser, backhead, tank fillers etc on several designs, so I made a few more - for example all the steam locos at groudle glen (240t, 042t, 040st) are essentially the same parts and fittings rearranged, and there were other variations on that theme built for elsewhere. There wasn't really a source of 7mm, 1/32 or 1/24 small bagnall, couillet or O&K fittings, which had previously frustrated me when scratchbuilding, so I sprued them up and made them available. They certainly turn out better than many commercial white metal castings I've had.

Did that in 2012. Etched rods intended for a LBSCR terrier (which is 6'+6', whereas the Y7 is just 6'). Body and chassis were sprued together for shapeways. Designed for brass bearing inserts and gibson wheels. Motor bracket is printed in to mesh accurately with a bevel gear on the axle. Sandpipes and brake rigging etc. Were added from brass rod. Obviously i chose an inside framed 040t as it's simpler, but it worked as proof of concept. No reason why something bigger wouldn't work, obviously you're adding complexity and potential shrinkage troubles, but once you get settings dialled in it should be ok.

The piers/breakwaters at the mouth of the Tyne both have rails in them: But we're never connected to anything else (well, the south one connected to the quarry just down the coast, blocks for the north pier were taken by rail to a jetty on the river and barged across, then by rail down the pier). So far as im aware, rail mounted cranes of a wider gauge and wagons to move stone/concrete blocks for building and repairing it was the only use for them. I think Tanfield railway has one of the block wagons and the grab, the ruston survives in scotland. the track on the pier was in use (or at least intact) into the 70s or 80s I think. This is interesting reading: https://southshieldslocalhistorygroup.co.uk/index.php/buildings/structures/piers/ And then scroll down for photos of loco workings here: https://southshieldslocalhistorygroup.co.uk/index.php/transport/railways/ Thry had a ruston 48ds and a peckett similar to the hornby model, there's an interesting prototype for a model! Of course this isnt an Irish example, but a good account with photos of the building of two breakwaters a mile out into the sea, presumably methods were similar.

I think the hunslet archives are at statfold barn. Perhaps worth asking there with the works number so they can search the drawing register. They have an archivist, and there is a charge for drawings, but they'll tell you how much upfront.

Maybe you could use the kit to make one of the pair the Rio Tinto had in Spain? 3'6" gauge. In fairness, at the time I recall it was advertised as being possible to build it to 009 with outside frames.

I'm sure they'll mention those when they announce the extension to burtonport...

Not a bad plan, notwithstanding an obvious error at the lower right, where you've inexplicably forgotten to mention the Donegal baltic tank and swilly 484t...

It's good news for those of us who can't be bothered with lettering/numbering our stock.

I think that centralising stuff in one location gives you a better chance - not competing for grants, volunteers, visitors etc and should have economies of scale with the overheads. A shame that things are quite fragmented with the 3' in the North too.

Looks about the length of the tracklaying train. Also the roadbed underneath it doesn't look as well prepared/ballasted - perhaps a temporary siding for construction only, to be removed later?

One should always pick a correct species for the area and model/paint accordingly. It's jarring to biologists to see inappropriate species depicted on layouts.

Nope. The license costs a lot and the IP owners enjoy a bit of legal action.

From what I've seen I'm not sure Bord na Mona have 50m of straight and level track to sell you, and I'd worry that the loco would never have been tested on such a thing!

Well everyone in the uk gets £350 million pounds to.... Hang on, your figure is both more accurate and plausible than that one...

Sort of... http://www.oxfordrail.com/76/OR76IOM.htm The Oxford rail model is a static die-cast, but looks good. It's also a somewhat later type. If you put one in a sandwich bag it's ideal for an early 21st century Douglas shed diorama.

Navan?

Presumably linked to the Shannon scheme? If so, you'd imagine the electric locos would be from Siemens-Schuckert like the rest of the stuff. Perhaps a look at what they provided in similar times to Germany Austria Japan UK (admittedly pre war).

I think the old injunction that uk railway companies were not allowed to build for external sale would have prevented it (the LNWR built a batch of locos for the L&Y in the 19th century and upset the loco builders, following which all agreed to stick to their respective spheres). What they might well have done was provide drawings to one of the established loco manufacturers. Over a thousand McIntosh designed/inspired locos were built for Belgium. The first of them were direct copies of the Caledonian Dunalistairs, which the caley hadbuilt in house at St Rollox, but the belgian locos were built by Neilson Reid to Caley drawings. Subsequent orders went to continental builders. If a GSR W mogul was to be built, it'd most probably be supplied by an outside builder. Crewe building for the DN&G or The various LMS works building for the NCC was fine as they were wholly owned subsidiary companies, and thus building for their own consumption, so to speak. I imagine the GNR(I) building railcar parts for the donegal was OK as they were part owners, or because it was too obscure and small for anyone to take much notice!

I believe several preserved locos have had a master mechanics pattern spark arrestor and baffles fitted within the smokebox, without affecting the external appearance or hurting its steaming. Certainly the Vale of Rheidol tanks and britomart have one fitted, specifically to allow use on drier days. Not sure what/if the current arrangements are, but perhaps worth investigating?

You could do all 3 types with the same chassis.... Bet its a jinty. Or a LNWR special tank...

Make sure the track clearances are wide enough for the bachmann quarry hunslet...

And not just on the East Coast of Ireland. Last week we travelled Milan- florence on the high speed trains, reaching 300km/h. Prices are very reasonable if booked in advance. The last 78km from bologna to Florence is a bit boring as 73km is in tunnels, but it does the trip in 2 hours, vs 3.5/4 in a car (whilst contending with Italian drivers). The investment must've been huge for all those tunnels, but the results are very interesting - rail's market share of rome-milan traffic has gone from 36% in 2008 to 80% in 2018. Air transport's market share of rome-milan has dropped from 50% to 14%. Load factor averages 78%. If we're serious about reducing carbon emissions and environmental impact from travel, this is how to do it. Make rail faster, cheaper, and less hassle than the alternatives. Yes it will involve investment, it might not make a profit so may need to involve the state, but it is a public good to reduce the pollution and congestion, and ease the movement of goods and people. An electric train powered mostly by renewables with regenerative braking is far more efficient and sensible than planes or hundreds of cars. Each train on the route has 500 seats, vs 189 on a Boeing 737-800. Of course we could've had that in the uk, but we started 40 years too late, then built a quarter of the line, didn't put it into the cities at both ends, then cancel most of it so we can fill in a few potholes in London. The huge capacity issues on the bottom of the wcml still remain. The message that sends about investment and hope in the future is pitiful. Short termist thinking, only concerned with what directly benefits themselves or their constituents and stuff everyone else is rife in political circles of all colours. If it can't be finished before the next election, then what's in it for them? Infrastructure investment is needed and has huge benefits, the longer it's delayed or the project faffed about with, the more it costs. Every appeal, every review, every postponement or prevarication to appease some angry voter group upset at the thought that some tax funds might pay for something that might benefit someone else just makes the costs rise. On this side of the Irish sea we knew well in advance we'd need to replace our nuclear power stations 30 years ago, but are just starting now, on half the number required. Guess what, they cost a lot more now. I'd be pretty sure that the metro would certainly have plenty of passengers on it. This isn't some white elephant in the middle of nowhere, nor does it strike me as solely for the airport traffic's benefit. Build it. Whether or not a heavy rail spur to the airport is viable seems a separate thing. There were similar complaints about LUAS when first mooted, but once built people just use it and are happy. Indeed the first proposals for that included a line to ballymun (I lived in glasnevin and Beaumont in 2001-3).