|
Richard I don’t think O14 will hit mainstream until ready to use turnouts are available. My interests are 021 which is even more niche than 014. But if O14 became more mainstream, would you still want to model in it?? O14 has its attractions because it’s needs a bit of work and skill to achieve! best regards Stay safe Stay sane
Kelvin
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1 Oct 2021, at 12:13, Richard Speight <richard.speight@...> wrote:
?
I'm incredibly excited about this announcement but feel it could be a missed opportunity.?
It's really positive that it's been promised as adaptable to O14.??Whatever adaptable to O14 means it isn't going to be without compromises (probably wheels inset from outside
frames), and probably require some skill and risk damaging an expensive model.
I dabble in O14, but my kit building isn't up to the standard of RTR products.? I know O14 is a "modelling" scale and I enjoy modelling but would love the support of RTR to open opportunities. i.e. wheel sets, track for fiddle yards, etc.
As I understand from subtle remarks from manufacturers this is not the only 7mm narrow gauge RTR announcement in the pipeline.??Every OO9 announcement so far has been a 2-foot gauge
prototype (OK some Baldwins were re-gauged).? 2-foot has the iconic prototypes which RTR manufacturers will produce.? I know some people will object as they're happy with their kits, however that doesn't change the fact it looks like 7mm narrow gauge RTR will
happen, but probably for O-16.5.? I think we all agree they won't look quite right on O-16.5.
O14 is currently a niche, even when compared to O-16.5, let alone OO9 and heaven forbit OO.? However, those markets are congested.? No one knows the potential of 7mm narrow gauge supported
by RTR but given success of 7mm standard gauge and OO9 it looks promising. Does it have to be O-16.5 or could it be O14 from the start?? With off the shelf track and a couple of RTR locos in O-14 its popularity would quickly overtake O-16.5, which could still
exist for those who want to adapt OO chassis or model railways around 2 foot 4 inches.
I believe Lionheart could be persuaded to produce a bespoke O14 chassis if they believed there would be sufficient sales.? The problem is lack of track and here there is a complete
market failure.? The majority of existing 7mm Narrow Gauge Association members are by definition happy with O-16.5 and some will like the idea of it being served by RTR.? Peco are likely to be excited by RTR O-16.5 to increase sales of existing products in
this range.? The opportunity is new entrants untied to a gauge, but these people are unlikely to be able to co-ordinate a move to O14.? So I fear nobody will act.
Can anything be done to encourage the production of O14 track and encourage the likes of Lionheart to produce a bespoke O14 chassis before we have range of 2-foot prototypes RTR but on O-16.5, recreating the legacy issues which sees the perpetuation of OO.
These aren't hollow words, I would happily help crowd fund such a project.? Does anyone have contacts within Peco that would be willing help put together a proposal?? I really feel there is an opportunity here but it is a short window that won't stay open for
long.
Thoughts?
Rich
Many years ago I bought a Wrightlines 'Pug' replacement chassis. Converting that to O14 involved removing a slice from the end of the stub axles. I still have nightmares about how badly I did it ...?Let's
just say I bought Kay's RTR version of the chassis rather than fix the horrible wounds I'd inflicted on the kit, which kit is still somewhere down in the 'stash'.
I'll persist with my Link/Gibson kit for a little while longer, though the Lionheart is very tempting.
David H
|
I forgot to list existing O14 modellers in my list of market failure groups, broadly speaking they are happy with the status quo.
Personally, I feel RTR 7mm narrow gauge will never cover all prototypes the way it is getting close to in OO, there would always be things to build.? Even
though I'm campaigning for off the shelf track I personally would still want to hand build front of house track as hand-built track looks finer and can be made to match the prototype of choice.? I'd use plenty of off the shelf track in fiddle yards, the point
is that it would bring others to the scale and make things viable.
Making the scale viable would be very useful.? Availability of O14 wheelsets particularly being a frustration.? Hopefully it would also bring further kit
manufacturer to the market.? The thing I would find most motivation sapping is the idea that I can buy a model off the shelf of a prototype I like in the scale I like at a reasonable price... but have to find a way of adapting it to the correct gauge.? Particularly
as the justification for using the wrong gauge in the first place is so poor.??Some might but I'm never going to build a kit of something that is available off the shelf, even if it
is the wrong gauge.
Paul Martin has supported O14 incredibly for a number of years and I've very grateful for that.? I'm interested in learning more about the off the shelf track he is producing.? As welcome is it is I fear it will be a 3D printed project for a niche market rather
than a headline grabbing offering which would change RTR manufacturers decision making .? I'd love to find out more though, where did you hear about it?
I know tooling track would be eye wateringly expensive, although i wouldn't want to guess a price.? Peco has launched ranges of OO9 set track to compliment OO9 streamline.? This duplication is surely indicative that costs aren't completely prohibitive if someone
is willing to take the risk, and importantly co-ordinate interested parties.? Track would never be viable if Lionheart, etc won't produce locos to run on in.
Regards,
Rich
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Richard
I don’t think O14 will hit mainstream until ready to use turnouts are available.
My interests are 021 which is even more niche than 014.
But if O14 became more mainstream, would you still want to model in it??
O14 has its attractions because it’s needs a bit of work and skill to achieve!
best regards
Stay safe
Stay sane
Kelvin
On 1 Oct 2021, at 12:13, Richard Speight <richard.speight@...> wrote:
?
I'm incredibly excited about this announcement but feel it could be a missed opportunity.?
It's really positive that it's been promised as adaptable to O14.??Whatever adaptable to O14 means it isn't going to be without compromises (probably wheels inset from outside
frames), and probably require some skill and risk damaging an expensive model.
I dabble in O14, but my kit building isn't up to the standard of RTR products.? I know O14 is a "modelling" scale and I enjoy modelling but would love the support of RTR to open opportunities. i.e. wheel sets, track for fiddle yards, etc.
As I understand from subtle remarks from manufacturers this is not the only 7mm narrow gauge RTR announcement in the pipeline.??Every OO9 announcement so far has been a 2-foot gauge prototype
(OK some Baldwins were re-gauged).? 2-foot has the iconic prototypes which RTR manufacturers will produce.? I know some people will object as they're happy with their kits, however that doesn't change the fact it looks like 7mm narrow gauge RTR will happen,
but probably for O-16.5.? I think we all agree they won't look quite right on O-16.5.
O14 is currently a niche, even when compared to O-16.5, let alone OO9 and heaven forbit OO.? However, those markets are congested.? No one knows the potential of 7mm narrow gauge supported
by RTR but given success of 7mm standard gauge and OO9 it looks promising. Does it have to be O-16.5 or could it be O14 from the start?? With off the shelf track and a couple of RTR locos in O-14 its popularity would quickly overtake O-16.5, which could still
exist for those who want to adapt OO chassis or model railways around 2 foot 4 inches.
I believe Lionheart could be persuaded to produce a bespoke O14 chassis if they believed there would be sufficient sales.? The problem is lack of track and here there is a complete market
failure.? The majority of existing 7mm Narrow Gauge Association members are by definition happy with O-16.5 and some will like the idea of it being served by RTR.? Peco are likely to be excited by RTR O-16.5 to increase sales of existing products in this range.?
The opportunity is new entrants untied to a gauge, but these people are unlikely to be able to co-ordinate a move to O14.? So I fear nobody will act.
Can anything be done to encourage the production of O14 track and encourage the likes of Lionheart to produce a bespoke O14 chassis before we have range of 2-foot prototypes RTR but on O-16.5, recreating the legacy issues which sees the perpetuation of OO.
These aren't hollow words, I would happily help crowd fund such a project.? Does anyone have contacts within Peco that would be willing help put together a proposal?? I really feel there is an opportunity here but it is a short window that won't stay open for
long.
Thoughts?
Rich
Many years ago I bought a Wrightlines 'Pug' replacement chassis. Converting that to O14 involved removing a slice from the end of the stub axles. I still have nightmares about how badly I did it ...?Let's
just say I bought Kay's RTR version of the chassis rather than fix the horrible wounds I'd inflicted on the kit, which kit is still somewhere down in the 'stash'.
I'll persist with my Link/Gibson kit for a little while longer, though the Lionheart is very tempting.
David H
|
Kevin,
I agree. I’m a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which, of course I’m having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100 rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The 014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as volumes are likely to be low. If you’re happy to live with the compromise of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco’s offering.
Regards,
Mark.
|
I started in O-14, built a bit, found friends with O-16.5 and I've converted most of the O-14 to O-16.5. Somethings matter more than 2.5 mm. ? As regards Lionheart L&B, I find it odd that they should pick a prototype totally isolated, notorious in modelling circles for the difficulty of getting scale locos round less than scale curves. Surely one of the more well known lines, FR or WHR and associated if not directly connected slate quarry railways has to be a more commercial market. Often modellers are short of space, L&B coaches are long. I'd have thought a few quarry Hunslets and a few slate wagons could be made into an interesting layout on a board that would fit in the back of an estate car. You have the option of going up several levels. ? Frank
|
Mark,
I agree with what you are saying.? I've some S scale track components sat next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left and right hand point with flexi track.? I'm not thinking existing O14 modellers are the target audience.? What I'm proposing is getting the starting position for the mass market closer
to scale.? Which I believe would have knock on benefits for?
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point.? There is no group to drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to market it would be a run-away success.? Just think how popular an oval of track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Kevin,
I agree. I’m a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which, of course I’m having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100 rail to
represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers,
the shape of the sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the SR re laid the main line
and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The 014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as volumes are likely to be low. If you’re happy to live with the
compromise of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco’s offering.
Regards,
Mark.
|
My compromise with O14.
I use Sn3 Fast Track turnout jigs. Expensive, yes, but I have a key to the
back door which helps...
Shinohara Sn3 flextrack for unseen areas. Very hard to find now but I
think I read in a Scalelink bulletin that someone has bought the tooling?
Cheers,
CP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Mark,
I agree with what you are saying. I've some S scale track components sat
next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable
representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the
Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left
and right hand point with flexi track. I'm not thinking existing O14
modellers are the target audience. What I'm proposing is getting the
starting position for the mass market closer to scale. Which I believe
would have knock on benefits for
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point. There is no group to
drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to
market it would be a run-away success. Just think how popular an oval of
track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
Sent from Outlook<>
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Mark via groups.io
<mark_noble@...>
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:52
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos
announced
Kevin,
I agree. I’m a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to
get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which,
of course I’m having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100
rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart
has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot
gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are
not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the
sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the
distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple
spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the
SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The
014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch
building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as
volumes are likely to be low. If you’re happy to live with the compromise
of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco’s
offering.
Regards,
Mark.
|
Building O14 track and turnouts is not difficult. I’ve always found it one of the more enjoyable parts of the hobby, but I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
However, RTR O14 track and turnouts seem a little unlikely - partly because of the tooling costs for what is inevitably a niche market, partly because of the disparities in size and design between “skips with everything” industrial trackage on the one hand, and the more sophisticated p.way used on common carrier lines such as the L&B or the Rheidol on the other.
The most difficult/tedious parts when scratchbuilding a turnout are the crossing nose + wing rail assembly, and the switch blades. The closure rails and check rails are simply standard stuff cut to length, as are the crossing timbers. Might the answer thus be to supply pre-assambled crossings and pre-planed switch rails, to suitable crossing angles, and perhaps in Peco code 65 for industrial lines and Kalgarin code 82 for big brother? ?A properly thought-out stretcher bar assembly that allows the switch toes to pivot would also help; soldering switchblades up solid to a bit of PCB is asking for trouble later on. The only other things needed would be some photo-copied templates, ?strips of PCB for sleepers and crossing timbers (it’s the width that matters - the trackbuilder can cut it to length as needed as needed), and a roller gauge for each rail size, setting out both track- and check gauge. (Using a roller gauge designed for another rail profile is a no-no, says he from bitter experience!)
This would require little in the way of tooling or up-front investment, and should therefore be do-able for a cottage industry supplier. Moreover, the same components could also be used for 16.5mm gauge, thus widening the potential market to include those modellers seeking a more realstic alternative to the Peco track. (I’m not knocking Peco, who have done a grand job in making 7mm narrow gauge accessible, but their track is a bit “samey”.)?
Some of the above, e.g gauges, ?is already available on the Light Railway Stores site. Add the missing such as the crossings and switch rails, and O14 track and turnouts would be within reach of anyone who can pick up a soldering iron.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
My compromise with O14.I use Sn3 Fast Track turnout jigs. Expensive, yes, but I have a key to theback door which helps...Shinohara Sn3 flextrack for unseen areas. Very hard to find now but Ithink I read in a Scalelink bulletin that someone has bought the tooling?Cheers,CPMark,
I agree with what you are saying. ?I've some S scale track components sat
next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable
representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the
Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left
and right hand point with flexi track. ?I'm not thinking existing O14
modellers are the target audience. ?What I'm proposing is getting the
starting position for the mass market closer to scale. ?Which I believe
would have knock on benefits for
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point. ?There is no group to
drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to
market it would be a run-away success. ?Just think how popular an oval of
track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
Sent from Outlook<>
________________________________
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Mark via?
<mark_noble@...>
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:52
To:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos
announced
Kevin,
I agree. I知 a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to
get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which,
of course I知 having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100
rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart
has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot
gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are
not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the
sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the
distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple
spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the
SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The
014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch
building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as
volumes are likely to be low. If you池e happy to live with the compromise
of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco痴
offering.
Regards,
Mark.
|
I agree, but you miss my point.? I'm not talking about how easy or enjoyable it is for an individual to make track.? I'm talking about getting the underlying basis of a new RTR scale correct before legacy gets in the way.
7mm narrow gauge RTR seems to be coming, as it stands it will be 2-foot prototypes represented on O-16.5.? No one will make their fortune bringing O14 of the shelf track to the market.? There are plenty of other niche products now being bought to market so
I don't think it's a complete non-starter.??
It's easy to find problems, different styles of track, different angle of turnouts, etc.? I'm assuming Lionheart plan to get the Manning Wardle through existing Peco O-16.5 turnouts
so why not something equivalent in O14?
What is lacking is an interested party with means and desire to make it happen, alongside co-ordination with RTR manufacturers.? For instance, I can't believe Heljan aren't following the response and considering whether to offer Lyn in 7mm, with much of the
research and design already done for the OO9 model.??
If O14 off the shelf happened we're no longer talking about a niche scale.? It could be in a mix just behind O, O, N and OO9.??Existing O14 modellers may
indeed say that's not what they choose this scale for, that's fine.? Personally, the idea of RTR models representing 2-foot prototypes on O-16.5 pains me.? It would be a massive missed opportunity not to get it right now.
To the extent I'm trying to stick my neck out and make it happen, which is not my usual moda operandi!? I plan to keep asking questions of various parties.? As I mentioned earlier this is probably not the right place to gain support.? If anyone is interested
please feel free to get in touch.
Rich
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Building O14 track and turnouts is not difficult. I’ve always found it one of the more enjoyable parts of the hobby, but I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
However, RTR O14 track and turnouts seem a little unlikely - partly because of the tooling costs for what is inevitably a niche market, partly because of the disparities in size and design between “skips with everything” industrial trackage on
the one hand, and the more sophisticated p.way used on common carrier lines such as the L&B or the Rheidol on the other.
The most difficult/tedious parts when scratchbuilding a turnout are the crossing nose + wing rail assembly, and the switch blades. The closure rails and check rails are simply standard stuff cut to length, as are the crossing timbers. Might the
answer thus be to supply pre-assambled crossings and pre-planed switch rails, to suitable crossing angles, and perhaps in Peco code 65 for industrial lines and Kalgarin code 82 for big brother? ?A properly thought-out stretcher bar assembly that allows the
switch toes to pivot would also help; soldering switchblades up solid to a bit of PCB is asking for trouble later on. The only other things needed would be some photo-copied templates, ?strips of PCB for sleepers and crossing timbers (it’s the width that matters
- the trackbuilder can cut it to length as needed as needed), and a roller gauge for each rail size, setting out both track- and check gauge. (Using a roller gauge designed for another rail profile is a no-no, says he from bitter experience!)
This would require little in the way of tooling or up-front investment, and should therefore be do-able for a cottage industry supplier. Moreover, the same components could also be used for 16.5mm gauge, thus widening the potential market to include
those modellers seeking a more realstic alternative to the Peco track. (I’m not knocking Peco, who have done a grand job in making 7mm narrow gauge accessible, but their track is a bit “samey”.)?
Some of the above, e.g gauges, ?is already available on the Light Railway Stores site. Add the missing such as the crossings and switch rails, and O14 track and turnouts would be within reach of anyone who can pick up a soldering iron.
My
compromise with O14.
I
use Sn3 Fast Track turnout jigs. Expensive, yes, but I have a key to the
back
door which helps...
Shinohara
Sn3 flextrack for unseen areas. Very hard to find now but I
think
I read in a Scalelink bulletin that someone has bought the tooling?
Cheers,
CP
Mark,
I agree with what you are saying. ?I've some S scale track components sat
next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable
representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the
Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left
and right hand point with flexi track. ?I'm not thinking existing O14
modellers are the target audience. ?What I'm proposing is getting the
starting position for the mass market closer to scale. ?Which I believe
would have knock on benefits for
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point. ?There is no group to
drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to
market it would be a run-away success. ?Just think how popular an oval of
track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
Sent from Outlook<>
________________________________
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Mark via?
<mark_noble@...>
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:52
To:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos
announced
Kevin,
I agree. I知 a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to
get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which,
of course I知 having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100
rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart
has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot
gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are
not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the
sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the
distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple
spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the
SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The
014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch
building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as
volumes are likely to be low. If you池e happy to live with the compromise
of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco痴
offering.
Regards,
Mark.
|
Rich,
Could always wait and see what Lionheart mean by ‘adaptable to 14mm gauge’ first?
Andrew
|
>> To the extent I'm trying to stick my neck out and make it happen, which is not my usual moda operandi!? I plan to keep asking questions of various parties.<< ? Try sticking your wallet out instead for more success. ? >> I'm talking about getting the underlying basis of a new RTR scale correct before legacy gets in the way.<<?? Already too late, any RTR scale with RTR locos is going to be aimed at 16.5mm track because the mass market, such that it is, is currently modelling crap bodies on Smokey Joe chassis. ? What you and others here are suggesting manufacturers spend their money on is unrealistic. Bachmann chose 0n30 because they already had much of the track, accessories and common parts in their HO range and it needed the con of the US round the Christmas tree market to make that start with sufficient volumes. Anyone doing RTR NG in 7mm is going to go the same way and use the track that is available.? O14 modellers should be grateful that the Lionheart models have even thought of making 14mm gauge doable as it would have been very understandable for them to have just done 16.5mm. We need to wait and see just what they mean by easy to convert. ? My O14 track is 3D printed using Micro Engineering rail.?? If the first version which is based on L&B sleeper spacing with the simple spiked rail rather than baseplates sells, then it’s not a stretch to then do other formats. I think it is very likely that PECO would produce O14 track for the very reasons you can see in these responses – wildly different variations and O14ers saying I’d still build my own track. I certainly can’t justify the tens of thousands of pounds for the injection moulding tools for O14. ? Someone else’s suggestion was that X could do O14 flex track with Peco or Karlgarlin rail. That also is a non-starter. Anyone setting up to do flex track will want their own supply of rail and not be beholden to an intermediary. My track uses Micro Engineering rail because I can get it. I discussed his rail with Richard at Karlgarlin but we can’t make the price stack up mainly because I am VAT registered and he isn’t which instantly adds 20% to the costs. ? I think O14 by its nature and variety is destined to remain niche. I think the future lies with getting the predicted influx of RTR to think about allowing for O14 in their design whilst also using technology to make niche easier ? ? Paul Martin ? ? ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Richard Speight
Sent: 01 October 2021 16:53
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos announced? I agree, but you miss my point.? I'm not talking about how easy or enjoyable it is for an individual to make track.? I'm talking about getting the underlying basis of a new RTR scale correct before legacy gets in the way. 7mm narrow gauge RTR seems to be coming, as it stands it will be 2-foot prototypes represented on O-16.5.? No one will make their fortune bringing O14 of the shelf track to the market.? There are plenty of other niche products now being bought to market so I don't think it's a complete non-starter.?? It's easy to find problems, different styles of track, different angle of turnouts, etc.? I'm assuming Lionheart plan to get the Manning Wardle through existing Peco O-16.5 turnouts so why not something equivalent in O14? What is lacking is an interested party with means and desire to make it happen, alongside co-ordination with RTR manufacturers.? For instance, I can't believe Heljan aren't following the response and considering whether to offer Lyn in 7mm, with much of the research and design already done for the OO9 model.?? If O14 off the shelf happened we're no longer talking about a niche scale.? It could be in a mix just behind O, O, N and OO9.??Existing O14 modellers may indeed say that's not what they choose this scale for, that's fine.? Personally, the idea of RTR models representing 2-foot prototypes on O-16.5 pains me.? It would be a massive missed opportunity not to get it right now. To the extent I'm trying to stick my neck out and make it happen, which is not my usual moda operandi!? I plan to keep asking questions of various parties.? As I mentioned earlier this is probably not the right place to gain support.? If anyone is interested please feel free to get in touch.
Building O14 track and turnouts is not difficult. I’ve always found it one of the more enjoyable parts of the hobby, but I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. However, RTR O14 track and turnouts seem a little unlikely - partly because of the tooling costs for what is inevitably a niche market, partly because of the disparities in size and design between “skips with everything” industrial trackage on the one hand, and the more sophisticated p.way used on common carrier lines such as the L&B or the Rheidol on the other. The most difficult/tedious parts when scratchbuilding a turnout are the crossing nose + wing rail assembly, and the switch blades. The closure rails and check rails are simply standard stuff cut to length, as are the crossing timbers. Might the answer thus be to supply pre-assambled crossings and pre-planed switch rails, to suitable crossing angles, and perhaps in Peco code 65 for industrial lines and Kalgarin code 82 for big brother?? A properly thought-out stretcher bar assembly that allows the switch toes to pivot would also help; soldering switchblades up solid to a bit of PCB is asking for trouble later on. The only other things needed would be some photo-copied templates, ?strips of PCB for sleepers and crossing timbers (it’s the width that matters - the trackbuilder can cut it to length as needed as needed), and a roller gauge for each rail size, setting out both track- and check gauge. (Using a roller gauge designed for another rail profile is a no-no, says he from bitter experience!) This would require little in the way of tooling or up-front investment, and should therefore be do-able for a cottage industry supplier. Moreover, the same components could also be used for 16.5mm gauge, thus widening the potential market to include those modellers seeking a more realstic alternative to the Peco track. (I’m not knocking Peco, who have done a grand job in making 7mm narrow gauge accessible, but their track is a bit “samey”.)? Some of the above, e.g gauges, ?is already available on the Light Railway Stores site. Add the missing such as the crossings and switch rails, and O14 track and turnouts would be within reach of anyone who can pick up a soldering iron. ?
? My compromise with O14.
I use Sn3 Fast Track turnout jigs. Expensive, yes, but I have a key to the
back door which helps...
Shinohara Sn3 flextrack for unseen areas. Very hard to find now but I
think I read in a Scalelink bulletin that someone has bought the tooling?
Cheers,
CP
Mark,
I agree with what you are saying.? I've some S scale track components sat
next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable
representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the
Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left
and right hand point with flexi track.? I'm not thinking existing O14
modellers are the target audience.? What I'm proposing is getting the
starting position for the mass market closer to scale.? Which I believe
would have knock on benefits for
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point.? There is no group to
drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to
market it would be a run-away success.? Just think how popular an oval of
track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
Sent from Outlook<>
________________________________
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Mark via?
<mark_noble@...>
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:52
To:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos
announced
Kevin,
I agree. I知 a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to
get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which,
of course I知 having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100
rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart
has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot
gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are
not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the
sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the
distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple
spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the
SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The
014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch
building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as
volumes are likely to be low. If you池e happy to live with the compromise
of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco痴
offering.
Regards,
Mark.
?
|
014 mainstream with RTP track sounds like a nice idea but as Paul & others wrote, its unlikely to happen. Roy Link, KB Scale & others currently active have made it much easier than it otherwise would be. Mark Clarke will sell you a smooth running little RTR diesel to get started for under ?100.
I am planning an extension to my ‘Bunny Mine’ gypsum layout to build over the winter, this will require 7 of the Hudson type 2 radius turnouts so I’ll make a start and see how the first one goes. Those who know me also know I’m cack-handed.
I agree that RTR 2ft prototypes such as Quarry Hunslets would be lovely in 014 and grotesque in 016.5 but the market will decide, as ever.?
If PECO were going to enter the 014 market, Dave Malton would have designed the range by now - another great exponent for the gauge.
David
On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 at 17:32, Paul Martin < groups2@...> wrote: >> To the extent I'm trying to stick my neck out and make it happen, which is not my usual moda operandi!? I plan to keep asking questions of various parties.<< ? Try sticking your wallet out instead for more success. ? >> I'm talking about getting the underlying basis of a new RTR scale correct before legacy gets in the way.<<?? Already too late, any RTR scale with RTR locos is going to be aimed at 16.5mm track because the mass market, such that it is, is currently modelling crap bodies on Smokey Joe chassis. ? What you and others here are suggesting manufacturers spend their money on is unrealistic. Bachmann chose 0n30 because they already had much of the track, accessories and common parts in their HO range and it needed the con of the US round the Christmas tree market to make that start with sufficient volumes. Anyone doing RTR NG in 7mm is going to go the same way and use the track that is available.? O14 modellers should be grateful that the Lionheart models have even thought of making 14mm gauge doable as it would have been very understandable for them to have just done 16.5mm. We need to wait and see just what they mean by easy to convert. ? My O14 track is 3D printed using Micro Engineering rail.?? If the first version which is based on L&B sleeper spacing with the simple spiked rail rather than baseplates sells, then it’s not a stretch to then do other formats. I think it is very likely that PECO would produce O14 track for the very reasons you can see in these responses – wildly different variations and O14ers saying I’d still build my own track. I certainly can’t justify the tens of thousands of pounds for the injection moulding tools for O14. ? Someone else’s suggestion was that X could do O14 flex track with Peco or Karlgarlin rail. That also is a non-starter. Anyone setting up to do flex track will want their own supply of rail and not be beholden to an intermediary. My track uses Micro Engineering rail because I can get it. I discussed his rail with Richard at Karlgarlin but we can’t make the price stack up mainly because I am VAT registered and he isn’t which instantly adds 20% to the costs. ? I think O14 by its nature and variety is destined to remain niche. I think the future lies with getting the predicted influx of RTR to think about allowing for O14 in their design whilst also using technology to make niche easier ? ? Paul Martin ? ? ? ? ? I agree, but you miss my point.? I'm not talking about how easy or enjoyable it is for an individual to make track.? I'm talking about getting the underlying basis of a new RTR scale correct before legacy gets in the way. 7mm narrow gauge RTR seems to be coming, as it stands it will be 2-foot prototypes represented on O-16.5.? No one will make their fortune bringing O14 of the shelf track to the market.? There are plenty of other niche products now being bought to market so I don't think it's a complete non-starter.?? It's easy to find problems, different styles of track, different angle of turnouts, etc.? I'm assuming Lionheart plan to get the Manning Wardle through existing Peco O-16.5 turnouts so why not something equivalent in O14? What is lacking is an interested party with means and desire to make it happen, alongside co-ordination with RTR manufacturers.? For instance, I can't believe Heljan aren't following the response and considering whether to offer Lyn in 7mm, with much of the research and design already done for the OO9 model.?? If O14 off the shelf happened we're no longer talking about a niche scale.? It could be in a mix just behind O, O, N and OO9.??Existing O14 modellers may indeed say that's not what they choose this scale for, that's fine.? Personally, the idea of RTR models representing 2-foot prototypes on O-16.5 pains me.? It would be a massive missed opportunity not to get it right now. To the extent I'm trying to stick my neck out and make it happen, which is not my usual moda operandi!? I plan to keep asking questions of various parties.? As I mentioned earlier this is probably not the right place to gain support.? If anyone is interested please feel free to get in touch.
Building O14 track and turnouts is not difficult. I’ve always found it one of the more enjoyable parts of the hobby, but I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. However, RTR O14 track and turnouts seem a little unlikely - partly because of the tooling costs for what is inevitably a niche market, partly because of the disparities in size and design between “skips with everything” industrial trackage on the one hand, and the more sophisticated p.way used on common carrier lines such as the L&B or the Rheidol on the other. The most difficult/tedious parts when scratchbuilding a turnout are the crossing nose + wing rail assembly, and the switch blades. The closure rails and check rails are simply standard stuff cut to length, as are the crossing timbers. Might the answer thus be to supply pre-assambled crossings and pre-planed switch rails, to suitable crossing angles, and perhaps in Peco code 65 for industrial lines and Kalgarin code 82 for big brother?? A properly thought-out stretcher bar assembly that allows the switch toes to pivot would also help; soldering switchblades up solid to a bit of PCB is asking for trouble later on. The only other things needed would be some photo-copied templates, ?strips of PCB for sleepers and crossing timbers (it’s the width that matters - the trackbuilder can cut it to length as needed as needed), and a roller gauge for each rail size, setting out both track- and check gauge. (Using a roller gauge designed for another rail profile is a no-no, says he from bitter experience!) This would require little in the way of tooling or up-front investment, and should therefore be do-able for a cottage industry supplier. Moreover, the same components could also be used for 16.5mm gauge, thus widening the potential market to include those modellers seeking a more realstic alternative to the Peco track. (I’m not knocking Peco, who have done a grand job in making 7mm narrow gauge accessible, but their track is a bit “samey”.)? Some of the above, e.g gauges, ?is already available on the Light Railway Stores site. Add the missing such as the crossings and switch rails, and O14 track and turnouts would be within reach of anyone who can pick up a soldering iron. ?
? My compromise with O14.
I use Sn3 Fast Track turnout jigs. Expensive, yes, but I have a key to the
back door which helps...
Shinohara Sn3 flextrack for unseen areas. Very hard to find now but I
think I read in a Scalelink bulletin that someone has bought the tooling?
Cheers,
CP
Mark,
I agree with what you are saying.? I've some S scale track components sat
next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable
representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the
Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left
and right hand point with flexi track.? I'm not thinking existing O14
modellers are the target audience.? What I'm proposing is getting the
starting position for the mass market closer to scale.? Which I believe
would have knock on benefits for
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point.? There is no group to
drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to
market it would be a run-away success.? Just think how popular an oval of
track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
Sent from Outlook<>
________________________________
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Mark via?
<mark_noble@...>
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:52
To:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos
announced
Kevin,
I agree. I知 a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to
get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which,
of course I知 having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100
rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart
has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot
gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are
not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the
sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the
distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple
spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the
SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The
014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch
building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as
volumes are likely to be low. If you池e happy to live with the compromise
of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco痴
offering.
Regards,
Mark.
?
|
Allan
I like your thinking- I could use the components for O21 best regards Stay safe Stay sane
Kelvin
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1 Oct 2021, at 16:00, Allan Dare <allan.dare@...> wrote:
? Building O14 track and turnouts is not difficult. I’ve always found it one of the more enjoyable parts of the hobby, but I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
However, RTR O14 track and turnouts seem a little unlikely - partly because of the tooling costs for what is inevitably a niche market, partly because of the disparities in size and design between “skips with everything” industrial trackage on the one hand, and the more sophisticated p.way used on common carrier lines such as the L&B or the Rheidol on the other.
The most difficult/tedious parts when scratchbuilding a turnout are the crossing nose + wing rail assembly, and the switch blades. The closure rails and check rails are simply standard stuff cut to length, as are the crossing timbers. Might the answer thus be to supply pre-assambled crossings and pre-planed switch rails, to suitable crossing angles, and perhaps in Peco code 65 for industrial lines and Kalgarin code 82 for big brother? ?A properly thought-out stretcher bar assembly that allows the switch toes to pivot would also help; soldering switchblades up solid to a bit of PCB is asking for trouble later on. The only other things needed would be some photo-copied templates, ?strips of PCB for sleepers and crossing timbers (it’s the width that matters - the trackbuilder can cut it to length as needed as needed), and a roller gauge for each rail size, setting out both track- and check gauge. (Using a roller gauge designed for another rail profile is a no-no, says he from bitter experience!)
This would require little in the way of tooling or up-front investment, and should therefore be do-able for a cottage industry supplier. Moreover, the same components could also be used for 16.5mm gauge, thus widening the potential market to include those modellers seeking a more realstic alternative to the Peco track. (I’m not knocking Peco, who have done a grand job in making 7mm narrow gauge accessible, but their track is a bit “samey”.)?
Some of the above, e.g gauges, ?is already available on the Light Railway Stores site. Add the missing such as the crossings and switch rails, and O14 track and turnouts would be within reach of anyone who can pick up a soldering iron.
My compromise with O14.I use Sn3 Fast Track turnout jigs. Expensive, yes, but I have a key to theback door which helps...Shinohara Sn3 flextrack for unseen areas. Very hard to find now but Ithink I read in a Scalelink bulletin that someone has bought the tooling?Cheers,CPMark,
I agree with what you are saying. ?I've some S scale track components sat
next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable
representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the
Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left
and right hand point with flexi track. ?I'm not thinking existing O14
modellers are the target audience. ?What I'm proposing is getting the
starting position for the mass market closer to scale. ?Which I believe
would have knock on benefits for
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point. ?There is no group to
drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to
market it would be a run-away success. ?Just think how popular an oval of
track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
Sent from Outlook<>
________________________________
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Mark via?
<mark_noble@...>
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:52
To:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos
announced
Kevin,
I agree. I知 a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to
get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which,
of course I知 having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100
rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart
has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot
gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are
not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the
sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the
distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple
spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the
SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The
014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch
building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as
volumes are likely to be low. If you池e happy to live with the compromise
of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco痴
offering.
Regards,
Mark.
|
It would make my plans a lot easier to say the least. I have at least 3 layouts I would love to build one in 0-14, one in 0-16 and one in 0-21. I can do the sleepering myself but milled rail components or even the jigs would let me get
things off the ground. ?
?
Marc Dobson
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Kelvin White
Sent: 01 October 2021 22:48
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos announced
?
Allan
I like your thinking- I could use the components for O21
On 1 Oct 2021, at 16:00, Allan Dare <allan.dare@...> wrote:
?Building O14 track and turnouts is not difficult. I’ve always found it one of the more enjoyable parts of the hobby, but I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
However, RTR O14 track and turnouts seem a little unlikely - partly because of the tooling costs for what is inevitably a niche market, partly because of the disparities in size and design between “skips with everything” industrial trackage
on the one hand, and the more sophisticated p.way used on common carrier lines such as the L&B or the Rheidol on the other.
The most difficult/tedious parts when scratchbuilding a turnout are the crossing nose + wing rail assembly, and the switch blades. The closure rails and check rails are simply standard stuff cut to length, as are the crossing timbers. Might
the answer thus be to supply pre-assambled crossings and pre-planed switch rails, to suitable crossing angles, and perhaps in Peco code 65 for industrial lines and Kalgarin code 82 for big brother? ?A properly thought-out stretcher bar assembly that allows
the switch toes to pivot would also help; soldering switchblades up solid to a bit of PCB is asking for trouble later on. The only other things needed would be some photo-copied templates, ?strips of PCB for sleepers and crossing timbers (it’s the width that
matters - the trackbuilder can cut it to length as needed as needed), and a roller gauge for each rail size, setting out both track- and check gauge. (Using a roller gauge designed for another rail profile is a no-no, says he from bitter experience!)
This would require little in the way of tooling or up-front investment, and should therefore be do-able for a cottage industry supplier. Moreover, the same components could also be used for 16.5mm gauge, thus widening the potential market
to include those modellers seeking a more realstic alternative to the Peco track. (I’m not knocking Peco, who have done a grand job in making 7mm narrow gauge accessible, but their track is a bit “samey”.)?
Some of the above, e.g gauges, ?is already available on the Light Railway Stores site. Add the missing such as the crossings and switch rails, and O14 track and turnouts would be within reach of anyone who can pick up a soldering iron.
?
?
My compromise with O14.
I use Sn3 Fast Track turnout jigs. Expensive, yes, but I have a key to the
back door which helps...
Shinohara Sn3 flextrack for unseen areas. Very hard to find now but I
think I read in a Scalelink bulletin that someone has bought the tooling?
Cheers,
CP
Mark,
I agree with what you are saying. ?I've some S scale track components sat
next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable
representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the
Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left
and right hand point with flexi track. ?I'm not thinking existing O14
modellers are the target audience. ?What I'm proposing is getting the
starting position for the mass market closer to scale. ?Which I believe
would have knock on benefits for
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point. ?There is no group to
drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to
market it would be a run-away success. ?Just think how popular an oval of
track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
Sent from Outlook<>
________________________________
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Mark via?
<mark_noble@...>
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:52
To:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos
announced
Kevin,
I agree. I知 a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to
get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which,
of course I知 having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100
rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart
has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot
gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are
not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the
sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the
distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple
spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the
SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The
014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch
building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as
volumes are likely to be low. If you池e happy to live with the compromise
of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco痴
offering.
Regards,
Mark.
?
|
Marc
What is your O21 project? best regards Stay safe Stay sane
Kelvin
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1 Oct 2021, at 23:26, Marc Dobson <marcbobdobson@...> wrote:
?
It would make my plans a lot easier to say the least. I have at least 3 layouts I would love to build one in 0-14, one in 0-16 and one in 0-21. I can do the sleepering myself but milled rail components or even the jigs would let me get
things off the ground. ?
?
Marc Dobson] _._,_._,_
|
I had two ideas initially eskdale green circ 1900 and something on the CDR. The O'wd Ratty project got as far as the base boards and a 3? plank wagon. The drawings that I got from the 7mm NGA were so bad it would have taken years to get a working GA for all
the stock let alone build them.
The CDR one is still in the planning/research stage.
The 0-16 one is my next layout as it has been requested by my little lad. Who is fascinated with the Tal-y-llyn stock I already have.
Marc
Get
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Marc
What is your O21 project?
best regards
Stay safe
Stay sane
Kelvin
On 1 Oct 2021, at 23:26, Marc Dobson <marcbobdobson@...> wrote:
?
It would make my plans a lot easier to say the least. I have at least 3 layouts I would love to build one in 0-14, one in 0-16 and one in 0-21. I can do the sleepering myself but milled rail components or even the jigs would let me get
things off the ground. ?
?
Marc Dobson]
|
Writing as the Chairman and Trade Liaison Officer of the 7mm NGA ...
I can only express delight and satisfaction at the announcement by Lionheart Trains.?An RTR loco for 7mmNG has been an aspiration for the Association since its inception in 1979.?
There have been some false starts but, now, at last, we appear to be on the brink of realising that dream.?
Writing personally, as an O14 modeller, I am equally delighted that the proposed model is a 2ft gauge prototype and that, notwithstanding the commercial imperative for 16.5mm gauge, provision will be made for 14mm gauge at the manufacturing stage.
Quite apart from Richard Webster's personal interest in the L&B I can understand the choice of prototype.
The L&B revival and extension is likely to be the headline narrow gauge project in the UK for some time to come; the F&WHR (my first love!) having hogged the headlines for a good few years!? The project to recreate Manning Wardle locos for the L&B is also making steady progress with physical evidence expected soon.?
The L&B provides an opportunity to easily provide models of all the rolling stock, including manageable variations according to period, as demonstrated by the Lionheart proposals for carriages, and, although the stock is distinctive, it readily lends itself to being personalised for those who choose to develop their own histories for their model railways.
Adrian? ?
|
Allan Dare
Paul Martin
Adrian Gray