4firstimes

On the subject of platform lengths , being an acceptable length of a model platform compared with a prototype. Whilst being faced with the situation, with a potential house move, and the realisation that the present layouts in N gauge will not fit without considerable modification, the option is to rebuild and consider one of my favourite locations. Looking at several options, and with an understanding of how railways developed, certainly platform lengths changed over the years mostly increasing as traffic developed or coach lengths grew. Certainly there as was a lot of commonality in lengths, shorter that 300 feet , under 350 feet , 400 feet and the longer lengths at mainline and terminal stations. Electrification on the Southern saw platforms grow to accommodate at least 12 coaches 500/600ft . Modellers can work out what the scale length equates to in their model choices. The point is around selective compression in both the length and width to be representative, and also to present a balanced perspective. Interesting whilst looking at prospective locations to model a number of similarities in lengths quickly became apparent, which demonstrate how we modellers under estimate passenger train compositions. A fellow modeller kindly provided me with information on prototype platform lengths from the link below. https://www.railwaydata.co.uk Using this reference source and which contains details of all the remaining stations on the railway network the platform length can be estimated and resized to your chosen scale. Using this tool as a guide , one can quickly show how railway modellers underestimate platform lengths on their models. As a former commuter I know understand how platforms where lengthen as traffic patterns changed.

In response to a previous posting in the forum of running around trains at Mallaig with more than 6/7 coaches. With a bit of research I have found the extract , other pictures or webcast appear to have been removed. The date in question was 16 Jan 1983, A SLOA (Steam Locomotive Operators Association) No 14 Pullman Scenic Land Cruises Headboarded as ‘ The Winter West Highlander’. The train consisted of 11 coaches hauled by class 37s locomotives. One of the 37s Class 37/0 37027 ‘ Loch Eil’, the other 37 i haven’t identified. As the 11 coach consist was too long for run round facilities , the locomotives uncoupled with two coaches removed and shunted back to near the Former Signalbox at Mallaig to facilitate the reversal for the return working to Fort William. I understand the entire process took around 45 mins. I have located a link below to show how part of the process was completed. link. https://www.flickr.com/photos/lickeybanker/14666108896/in/photostream/ 16 jan 1983

Whilst looking for the web cast of shunting at Mallaig, I came across this Album set of over 72 pages of Photographs of the West Highland line Including The Mallaig Extension. Most of the images appear to be post 1980, there are several of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. This is the first time I have seen a vast collection grouped together. The is an interesting collection of Glenfinnan, whilst I can not work out how the collection is arranged, some are date stamped, most just have details of the location. I have a personal interest in both Arisaig and Lochailort, the angle and location of picture provides an atmospheric representation of how the West Highland line has changed over the years. The link is provided below, I am not sure if this source of information has been discussed in this forum previously. Link: https://www.flickr.com/groups/1667170@N22/pool/page1

The maximum number of coaches which Mallaig Platform could handle was six mark one coaches . On the internet there was a pod cast of showing how a train with nine coaches , was split ran around and re joined . I believe a ‘Pathfinder’ rail tour in 2016 the consist was 10 or 11 coaches , being top and tailed. The train was split and shunted in portions using the siding to facilitate the locomotive at the headshunt North End to run round.. An example is as follows , this is not the one I was referencing too; ‘Chasing the Royal Scotsman to Mallaig 20 April 2019’ If I can find the links again I edit this posting

Through this forum an observation has been made concerning how far forward a train has stopped in front of a home signal at Glenfinnan. The natural reason for this would be to clear the track circuiting and if another train was present on platform 2 this could depart following the exchange of token , either physically with the signaller prior to RETB or electronically via RETB . The infrastructure at Glenfinnan should be considered. The platform lengths at Glenfinnan is recorded as 75meters which up equates to approximately 250 feet. The actual loop is 139 meters or 455feet. When steam service operates on the Mallaig Extension the consist is made up of a locomotive plus tender and up to seven mark one coaches. The knowledgeable modellers can work out the total train length , hence the need to stand forward of the Home signal to accommodate the loop. When the West Highland Line was commissioned to accept RETB in March 1988. ScotRail issued a special notice for the Permanent Way and Signalling Arrangements for the Working of the West Highland Line including changes to sectional appendix alterations, Sectional Appendix section 1 table A pages 100 provides interesting information on loop clearance lengths (CL) and additional information on the south section of the West Highland Line on how the route was operated. A copy to the link is provided below. https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/pullfree.asp?FilePath=ArchiveSignals\Downloads\brscot&FileName=1988-westhighland.pdf it must be remembered in the days of steam the West Highland perpetuated the North British Railway practice of coupling the pilot locomotive inside the lead locomotive which opens up an interesting operational aspect when the pilot locomotive was removed from the train at Glenfinnan

The question of Headboad colours and coaches used on the Mallaig Extension when steam was re-introduced has been covered previously within this forum. With researching the Mallaig Extension since 1990 approximately I can provide the following information. The first public steam excursion on the Mallaig Extension was 28 May 1984 with Black Five locomotive 5407 , blue grey coaches and fleet of five coaches TSO and BSO where assigned to this roster. However 5407 who had the honour of inaugurating the steam service powered a press preview on 24 May 1984 . The headboard if carried was blue with white lettering “West Highlander”. Black Five 44767 George Stephenson was also assigned to this service together with Maude 683 as the steam service ran Weds, Thurs, and Sundays. Maude’s exploits have been recoded which resulted in the in the Friday service “Glenfinnan Flyer” between 13 July to 3 August. This has been recorded with the headboard of blue background and white lettering “West Highlander”. The next season 1985 saw a dedicated set of mark one coaches in white/cream and LNER green coaches . The colour being reminiscent of the ex LNER tourist Stock. These mark one coaches introduced in 1985 BSO: 9312, TSO:4050,4243,4494,4610,4623,4643 “ West Highland” legend with Scottie Dogs and ScotRail. Black Fives numbers 44767,5407 rostered for the season. The season 1987 saw a second set of dedicated Mark one coaches introduced BCK:IC21241C TSO: IC3766C,IC44135c,IC4900C, IC4911c, IC4912C “West Highland Line” at the end of the 1987 season the original Mk One set was withdrawn . In 1987 LNER K1 was assigned to the seasons trips 2005 and with a blue background and white Lettered headboard “The Flying Kipper”. Interested modellers will need to consult British Railways Mark one Coaches , by Keith Parkin to indentify the Diagram numbers of the coach builds and also the livery variations of the the dedicated sets. The original set had dark grey rooks including the gutters , reading down the coach sides green, black lining, cream, black lining, LNER green with solebar black The set was lettered “West Highland ‘and ‘ScotRail’ . Scottie on centre doors all lettering in white. Ends LNER Green. The later set , reading down the coach sides- Grey roof , Green including Gutters , Black lining , Cream, Black , Red lining ,LNER Green , solebar black Lettered ‘West Highland Line in white , coach number using prefix IC , Ends Black .

The corporate colour scheme of the Buildings on the West Highland Line Or West Highland Railway , modellers might be interested in this information provide below, the link is included https://www.stationcolours.info/18-2/ As the North British infrastructure was found on the West Highland Line. I understand even through the LNER period the former identities were retained unless replaced. NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY The NBR had two color schemes for buildings; they could be painted in two shades of green, the lighter for planking, valencing, etc, and a darker shade for metalwork, doors, etc. As an alternative cream and brown were used together; in both cases, window frames were white. Ironwork is recorded as being black, but I am nor sure to which Ironwork this refers. I have a feeling that the two-tone green was the later livery used for instance on the West Highland line, but I have no written evidence for this. Station seats were black, grey or white with gold or yellow lettering identifying the station. Platform barrows were vermillion with black ironwork. Presumably, poster boards were painted either brown or in the darker green shade. PAINTS FOR MODELLERS Cream – Precision SR buildings cream. Brown – Precision LMS buildings brown. Light green – Tamiya Yellow Green Dark green – Tamiya Park Green. Many thanks to Archie Noble for much of this information.

The interest in this model of Glenfinnan station I have been following closely, as I have over a number of years researching the Mallaig Extension, having an active interest in Glenfinnan . Earlier in this forum article a discussion has appeared of the signal levers in the Box at Glenfinnan. I was lucky to receive some information of the layout when the box closed 15th April 1986. With the express wishes of the originator not to publish or share therefore I am unwilling to make public the information, however I will attempt to describe . Glenfinnan had 15 levers , lever 6 and 7 listed as spare. Tylers tablet section was from Glenfinnan to Lochailort, and Lochailort to Annat , the mid section being Glenfinnan Signal box . Lever 1 yellow Distant signal From Lochailort, distance in yards unknown Pulls lever 2 lever 3. Lever 2 Red home pulls lever 4 point lock Lever 3 Red Home up platform starter pulls 5 Lever 4 Blue point lock loop Lever 5 Black loop points lever 6 spare Lever 7 spare Lever 8 Black points to loading dock Lever 9 Red pulls 10 Shunt signal Lever 10 Black points to Goods Yard Lever 11 Black points to loop from Lochailort Lever 12 Blue point lock on loop from Annat Lever 13 Red Home Down Platform starter also pulls 11 Lever 14 Red Home 293 yards from signal box also pulls 12 Lever 15 Yellow Distant signal 850 yards from Signal box pulls 14 and 13. The Levers pulling signals 1 Distant (Up Distance) Signal 2 Home (Up home) and signal 3 Home starter, signal 13 Down home starter I have no information on the distances from the box . The article in the forum identifies some of the plates which appeared on the signal levers.

Interesting following this article of the frustrations of wiring points for solenoid operation and electro-frog r uni-frog. Switching to DCC several years ago I have looked looked back and always fail to understand other modellers fustrations. Having several layouts Arisaig and Cromer Road, both use DCc to control the points signals and Block dectection. Carefully planing minimises inter baseboard joint connections, and with two DCC power buses one for the track and one for the accessories , why bother building a layout with DCc to power the trains and DC points and signals. This forum has mentioned several systems for operating points , and I would recommend the advice, for solenoids I prefer NCE snap it to operate peco or seep point motors. With Two wires from the DCC accessory bus and three wires from the point motor to the snap it, simple self contained units. Although I prefer to use something called a frog juicer to switch the power on electro frog or unifrog points, again two wires from the accessory bus to the juicer and one wire from the point frog to the juicer , simple set up. I have just done away with the control panel on Cromer Road, converting the panel to an LED display using DCC concepts components, interesting finding the cause of an intermittent short. My operators love using an iPad to operate the layouts with wires and remotely from the layout. DCC operated layouts including points and signals are no different to work with just need a methodical approach after which you would never want to switch to DC. Slipping in that New scenic feature becomes simple. The skills of fellow modellers will aways help with the frustrations.

With the ESP Aegis 5 amp wireless system for use with NCE powercab now commercially available, I am really interested in finding the views of users. Various posts have commented on the cost of the system, as a “fan” of the DCC concepts style there is no doubt the layout and the ability to fit to one of your baseboards does make it cosmeticially appealing for hands free operation . On both of my layouts which have appeared at exhibitions I have used the Wfi Trax module, the later module allows a direct connection with The NCE PCP without requiring the need for lead and socket, simple replacement of the NCE pcp with the WiFitrax module. The WiFi Trax module wfd-30/31 sourced for under £100 and using Wifithrottle or Enginedriver certainly makes a cheap option for WiFi control and mobility for controlling the layout. With numerous old IPhones available, they have served as a well addition to operating the layout and user friendly for operators. Leaving the powercab handset in the holder on the layout and roaming with a iPad mini or iPhone certainly provides the opportunity for handsfee operation and not necessarily from the rear of the layout. On my layouts I use the DCC power alpha 5 amps which is similar to the Aegis power rated system. Inclusion a WiFi controlled wireless control for approx £100 compared with the ESP Aegis I am interested in fellow modellers views . Using the ESP system for wireless control panels works well with the WifiTrax set up also as I use this for an LED schematic for block occupancy and point /signal states.

Hi there in response to yiyr query on peco short crossing. on my DCC layouts with diamond crossings , I like to wire the crossings in the way outlined below and after 7 years I have had no issues. Firstly All the points joining the crossover I put insulated rail joiners in as the crossover is independently wired. The two leads wires from the K crossing the knuckles I wire to the DCC bus or too your dpdt throw switch connected to the DCc bus for when the associated leading point is thrown. The two wires to the frog crossings I wire to a Frog juicer, I tend to use the TAM valley duel one , not the six one as I prefer not to have any frog polarity switching by any other point so the crossing is self contained. From the frog juicer just wire to your DCc bus. DCc concepts web site was some interesting articles on wiring diamond crossovers on double junctions . Any problems email off the forum

There is no Doubt Ian has demonstrated over the years layouts don’t have to be over complicated with points and large construction. Ian has over the years migrated the various scales and proved that interesting layouts can be built. Having spent ages observing him run Otterburn in 4mm scale , this still remains etched in my mind from the late 1970’s as a design with plenty of interest. Over the years Ian has produced several layouts including the venture into 7mm scale. I Seem to recall a 7mm version of Newcastle NB , this appeared in the late magazine of Model Railways Illustrated (MORIL) including an article on building 7mm rolling stock. If any followers have a copy of the article I would be interested in a copy off forum please. There is no doubt Ian has had a proliferation of layouts and many articles in the other magazines other than the Railway Modeller. With reductions in disposable income and the current costs of locomotives, be DCC or analogue, there appears to be a resurgence of simple layouts very much reflecting the experience Ian Futers has shared with the railway modelling community though the years.

The announcement that Revolution trains are to produce a new model of the Class 66 locomotive with the options of the various variants, comes as no surprise given their previous choice of Class 59. This is a natural progression of choice I think. A Mail Drop from another forum announced the Revolution intention, and whilst the question was raised of further duplication. However this is a good example of Revolution challenging the big players in N gauge and raising the standards. The original models of the Class 66, a similar statement was made when they released the “Sheds” in their ranges. Whilst each manufacturer has tinkered around with their models making changes mostly to the fitting of the type of decoders, there has not been any radical changes, and the representation of the variants dated and long over due development. Simply reading the specifications Revolution are proposing , a smaller decoder fitting compared with the Next 18 or 6 Pin decoder and options for additional lighting functionality; there becomes no comparison. The challenge shows that the main stream manufacturers need to up their game in the market of models in their ranges. The proposed simple design to access bodies to add the decoder either sound or non-sound equipped is a game changer and the Revolution team should be congratulated on the advanced features. This is one example where duplication is good as Revolution have aimed to address the technical changes now available to ensure the longevity of their models, with flexibility to cover the large variants. Without referencing the original release dates of the Sheds I expect this to be nearly 10 years hence comfortably state dated. The early releases I look back and see for how long they were withdrawn from production whilst fitment changes made for the decoders . One manufacturer announcing sound variants either of the shelf or as an owner fitting this appears to be over 12 months. Thank you Revolution for improving the Choice of 66 locomotives, being the most numerous locomotive on the network today. This is clearly a case of duplication works to the advantage of the hobby .

As a modeller with and interest in the West Highland Line, Revolution Trains deserve congratulating on the design of the Mk5 sleeper coaches . When the announcement was made I don’t know how I missed. A quick email to the team at Revolution indicated that they had no free Stock of the Fort William Set and a suggestion to try their registered retailer network. Success , I managed to buy the Set representing Fort William Sleeper set. Running on the Layout absolutely stunning and the use of the magic wand to switch the lights on an off certainly better than fitting function decoders in each carriage. Whilst revolution have produced the Class92 in the Caledonian sleeper livery, could you be persuaded to produce the Class73/7 in the correct livery . Looking at the Dapol class 73 model with a view to conversion, this is now dated compared with the offerings from Revolution Trains.

The revolution team should be congratulated on the production of a decent Class 128 DPU. The long awaited model could be a taster for what can be achieved with many of the longer chassis designed DMUs, can’t wait for the Class 120 DMUs to appear having travelled miles on these in my younger days These classes of DMUs, certainly didn’t bounce around compared with the shorter chassis DMUs class 101 , 108 and 105s . Those 120s where the buffet bar had been removed , certainly made a comfortable area to list down after one to many lemonade shandys waiting for the last train home. With the receipt of two class 128s and fitting a Zimo sound chip, with the sound file of the Leyland Albion. The revolution design team have certainly given vast thought. At the time when the model was announced, I don’t know if the option of sound fitted or non sound fitted was given , however seeing that the models come with pre-fitted speaker, this is a welcome design consideration. I can vouch for the best of the sound files representing the reproduction of the Leyland Albion sound for the prime mover. Lowering the sound level reduces the distortion and checking the seal on the sugar cube speaker pays dividends. Select the function to hear the second engine, the sound is awesome. Tweaking a few CVS the reported distortion disappears and the level is acceptable for home use. I find sound fitted locomotives in N Gauge at exhibitions the sound is lost. However, when at home it’s acceptable and after a period of time is not over powering. I would be interested to know through this forum which are the other distributors of Class 128 DPU sound file I have two different ones downloaded onto a Zimo next 18, one is streets ahead of the other and is he I remember the Class128 DPU , being thrashed. I will add I generally avoid buying models with the sound file already loaded on the chip preferring to consider the aftermarket offerings. The release of this model by revolution trains; and when I compared the models released in the last 12 months by the alternative manufacturers represents a significant challenge to the main stream N Gauge manufactures who really need to tighten their quality control processes.

The wait for the Dapol light weight West Country/Battle of Britain unrebuilt “Spam Can” is showing light at the end of the tunnel. This must have been one of the longest waits in the history of developing N Gauge models , even if the schedule is maintained for the 4 quarter of 2024. I’ll cross my fingers in hope ! When originally announced in 2012 the estimate was around £120. Receiving an email today announcing the milestone and the milestone of prices for the different configurations, a double intake of breath. There has been rumours of what the cost of new models will be in the future. I accept quality has a price; I just hope the manufacturers quality control is going to match the new cost and not like the plagues of inferior models. Perhaps I should not have been reading my emails during a work meeting. The suggested retail price; enough to make me gulp and distract me from the meeting in hand. I understand the mechanics of supply and demand, raise the standards and quality and we are now seeing a price range the credit card was previously locked in the wallet and the key lost.

Over the last few years the main players in the N Gauge market have raised the standards of their products out of all proportions. There is one aspect there seems to be repeated overlooked and each of the main stream manufacturers appear not to have addressed, this is the standardisation of back to back measurements of wheels. With models for sound now passing the £220 mark for sound fitted models and for not sound Dcc fitted hovering around £180 , and standard analogue Dcc convertible around £150 as a guide. A recent purchase of a Farish class 60 sound fitted locomotive proved my point there are serious quality control issues, of the six driving axles on this model not one of the back to back measurement showed any consistency, one of the central wheel was so out it dropped of the axle. When ran on the layout every point the pack to back was so far out the locomotive would not travel through. Out of fustration I was getting g ready to pack the locomotive up and return for a record. In the last six months I ve had out of 15 purchases 8 being sent back for refunds. One 08 shunter been returned to Bachmann no less than three times due to poor fitted pickups. Interesting on the o8 shunter those engineer grey o8 shunter with the words sound fitted on the pick up base, seen to have the same issue , replace with the pickup base with no stamping of sound fitted appear to be of a more flexible and solid construction. On this Class 60 I just could not bear paying a fortune to return for repair or replacement, with a brass back to back gauge managed to adjust all the wheel sets and this is now a perfect running locomotive. Having to take this drastic action, prompted the thought is it not time each of the main stream suppliers start to pay interest in consistent back to backs . The likes of other modelling scales have invested time to provide details to ensure there is standards. With prices of models increasing , please can the likes of Bachmann for there Farish range raise the standards and ensure their Quality control process is not releasing sloppy finished models

Definite quality control issues. There is no doubt the Class 28 locomotive from Rapido was had a number of issues since the release, and Rapido have to their credit worked seamlessly to provide a resolution . What is apparent, no attempt appears to have been made with the dealers to recall any models unsold and carry out the modifications. After dealt with several dealers during the purchase of six models to obtain a model which which run satisfactorily. A recent purchase of D5713 has shown a consistent issue failure of the decoders, at 1 sec the sound cuts and decoder is red hot to the extent the heat is transferred the body of the model. The example below shows the lack of contact with the pickups. As a n gauge modeller my tolerance to poor quality control is at the point is no longer acceptable, purchasing new models and had having to back load to dealers requesting and replacement or a refund , the continual additional postage charges of back loading and waiting for a replacement or to be fobbed off with a repair, reputations are being damaged, and whilst an organisation like Rapido have worked tirelessly to provide resolutions, could suppliers not filter out the dubs before processing to customers? I would like to state those models of the Class 28 I have bought without sound and fitted a sound decoder from third parties have run faultless after adjusting the pickups , which always seems to be over the 6 wheel bogie, only once have I had to adjust one pick up over the 4 wheel bogie in which the contact was more about alignment.

The interest in the push pull operations of the G5 Locomotives, and the types of push pull apparatus fitted to allow this mode of operation, I am interested in in numbers 2093 , 1882 , as these two locomotives were fitted compressed air gear to operate the push pull mechanism in January and February 1939. I believe 1780 was subsequently converted after May 1944. On nationalisation these locomotives would become 67269, 67279, and 67322 , I am looking for details of the compressed air gear attached for converting model to one of these variants.

Interest in Bricket Wood appears to growing with modellers in various scales considering this location as the basis of a model . I have a question too in 1946 entry to the Loop at Bricket Wood photo evidence shows that from Watford direction the loop as signalled with a tall LNWR lower quadrant signal with two Home signals on same post , the taller home from the Watford to St Albans direction , the lower home I assume is a starter home for the direction St Albans to Watford on the long platform quoted as 600ft. In a later photo 1950 this is a standard Junction Splitter signal with the Dolls of equal height , any idea when this was changed and was this an upper or lower quadrant signal arms . In both cases the position is quoted as 200yards from the signal cabin . Any details of either types of signals would be appreciated. Please off forum is the preferred option.

What makes a good exhibition layout? This question has been asked many times , if you attend many exhibitions just have a good look around at those which attract the crowds. The local railway club / society exhibitions are always a good gauge for what people like. The actual layout itself should be built so it’s light enough to be transported and suitable size that it can be managed easy . I’ve built layouts on 4ft 6 inches x 1ft baseboard , light weight or baseboard weight , transporting from the back of a car van or other chattel into a venue often requires manual dexterity twisting and turning through passage ways. Almost certain is some form of lighting rig as most venues the lighting is poor to show off your layout. The layout should run faultless, the hand from the sky distracts people’s attention and they walk away. Remember to build legs into your baseboard and ensure they are adjustable and floors are seldom flat and level. Layouts built as home designed very seldom render themselves for exhibition purposes, and remember when you design the layout it needs to pack down into a way that is transportable . Layouts in which something is moving all the time attracts interest , take the lessons from Some of the famous layouts on the exhibition circuit , simple to operate , not overlaid with track , but something moves all the time. The most important element to remember the layout should breakdown easy and be quick to load into the transport at the end of the show, the operators are tired , enthusiastic to get home but that’s only the small part as when you get home it’s unloading the car and then re building in its home till the next time. Those os use with layouts which are shown away from home when the layout is dismantled is the only time the railway room gets a look with the vacuum cleaner . As the builder of coffin layouts, transporting a layout needs early consideration when building. Nearly forgot to say some form of drapes are required to hang on the front to disguise the dumping ground under the layout , this I find is the first thing to be forgotten. When you have your exhibition masterpiece, the smaller layouts are more likely to be invited to the local shows, many model railway clubs and societies usually have a couple of local shows not necessarily exhibitions but model shows of the work of the local club these are the ones to attend initially before the local exhibitions and further afield, they attract families and this is what promotes interest in your masterpiece. In my town we have a modellers day in which several of the model railway clubs exhibit layouts in the museum, this is a free event , and at Christmas prior to covid a show in one of the local shopping centre. This way you learn how to make your layout exhibition ready and appreciate the layouts that maintain interest. The enthusiasm at the start is not the same as the last hour of the show, that’s what makes exhibiting layout’s interesting. As an owner of a layout which is able to be exhibited, my operators usually have plenty of nibbles and refreshments available.

I ve received mine too, with two evenings of running in and testing, I can say I’m throughly impressed. Comparison with a non sound version I can say that I am extremely satisfied. After two failures on an early Christmas present one can empathise with my disappointment, remembering younger days opening a present and it doesn’t work, a childhood feeling. Together with representation of the Class 44/45 models on the horizon, the interest is there. I will leave the options of sound or non versions open to debate, however with the availability of options easy to up-grade at a later date, Rapido have set an interesting option; for modellers to consider. With the current trend of decoders with the ability to embed sounds showing a significant difference between sound fitted and non sound fitted the market strategy of Rapido provides improvements with many of the after fit options which are emerging. As a group of railway modellers we should hold Rapido in high esteem with the professionalism, the little hiccup with ESU decoders. Both companies, ESU and Rapido have high standards of reputation, let’s hope the time taken for the resolution does not delay future models.

Interesting discussion with Rapido Trains at the London Model Railway exhibition at Alley Pally for those of us who have returned the faulty sound fitted chips of class 28 locomotives. Whilst Rapido have adopted a professional approach and quickly identifying a viable fix to the issue , the response to provide an update on the situation, and providing notification when the planned resolution completed so affected owners can enjoy this wonderful model was been a bit delayed . The anticipated time frame given as about an additional three weeks before the affected owners receive their sound fitted models with fitted tested and working sound chip.

Without doubt there seems to be pleasing level of satisfaction those of us who have received their versions of the Rapido Models Class 28 , both in the high level of design and performance. Although after 20mins of running in mine has developed a sound fault , and I am wondering if there are any similar. I noticed that the model I have was very difficult to programmed with the short address set as 3 , but the long address set to 57xx , resetting to 3 produces no sound just a clicking sound when f1 is pressed on the NCE powercab. To re programme to the correct address for the running number suggested an error with the sound chip. I have contacted both the Retailer and Rapido Trains Uk direct for their advice . Feeling rather disappointed as this was a early Xmas present , and was wondering if there is an emerging problem

I have been following this article on Glenfinnan very closely with in-depth interest. With several years of research of the Mallaig extension and the Station at Glenfinnan I have a wealth of knowledge. The long mileage road from which the Mk One coaches and Camping Coaches were berthed started to drop away after the point for the short loading dock road. The view is slightly confusing for the following reasons network rail from railway data.co.uk , list the following gradient changes, mileage point 14.21miles 17 chains 369 yards as gradient change plus 1:60 for 660.1 meters this is to bridge 50 or bridge 66 as shown on the 1 in 500 plan . From bridge 50 or bridge 66 this in 14.62 miles 50 chains 110 yards gradient change of 1: 260 for 224.91 meters. The footcrossing at Glenfinnan East 14.7 miles 56 chains 1229 yards is the point of datum as after the footcrossing at Glenfinnan West 14.75 miles 60 chains and 1323 yards is the point in which the gradient changes to 1:50 for 144.45 meters. The enclosed photo of the ground frame at Glenfinnan East, if you look carefully amongst the undergrowth the point of gradient change is apparent. Also and this is the point all models of Glenfinnan station approach have not modelled the check rails on the points to the loop correctly , observe the the extended check rails.. I have enclosed a copy of 1 :500 plan of Glenfinnan station , this shows the position of the infrastructure features of the area .The copy has been laminated with plastic to preserve the details and being larger than A3 paper size has been mounted on card , hence why there may be a reflection Photo_2022-10-07_161635.pdf