ZiderHead

Some nice photos of the Metal Box sidings and loading bay here http://www.miac.org.uk/metalbox.html

If its a scanning software/driver issue (rather than incompatible physical interface) try VueScan - it supports a huge range of scanners: http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/supported-scanners.html

Latest update, and in answer to the topic title … sod all!

If you fancy running just a couple of these ferry vans (in a fairly tatty state) in N Wales there is an interesting use of them about halfway down this page: http://www.penmorfa.com/Archive/thirtyone.htm Edit: the tatty state refers to the vans, not Wales of course

… and surely running a train with accurate RTR wagons is better than running one with inaccurate wagons? Especially if they cost no more because the research to make them more accurate has already been done by others and is freely available, if only the manufacturer cares enough to listen?

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification

Just a thought … Why for each rail on a double track module? Is it so the module can be used for DC at home, or perhaps so block detection can be used?

… which is correct as it will be carrying an AC signal, not DC

My local ironmongers has twin mains flex for about 30p/m …

Bring a kettle

I think (and I'm certain I'll be corrected if I'm wrong! ) that Peco curved turnouts are 60/30" so if your planned diverging route is for sidings you'll be fine under the proposed spec. If its a mainline junction (i.e. the diverging route will be taken at mainline speeds) you would have to design the module to use straight turnouts

Not at all, if the min radius is x for mainline you build to at least x radius if you want to bring the module along and connect it to the other modules. No grey area at all, thats what standards are for.

Why not minimum 60" for mainline and 36" for sidings? And maybe even 24" for areas designated as industrial? Its not about trying to squeeze a layout into a spare room or garden shed. Quite apart from issues with close-coupling and long coupled-wheelbase locos it will look much better in the context of a large layout in a large room. Speaking of rooms, since these are not public meetings and won't need to cater for large numbers of visitors (and hence catering, loads of car parking etc.) it opens up a large number of venues which would be unsuitable for exhibitions or shows, many of which will be a lot cheaper. Think vacant warehouses and industrial spaces. All you really need is permission, power and loos

I cannot insure your car as I have no ​insurable interest in it. Likewise you cannot insure my life because you have no ​insurable interest in it. If you decide to lend me your car I can legally drive it because my insurance policy includes third party liability, so if I hit a pedestrian while driving any road legal vehicle my licence allows me to they can make a claim with my insurer. However if I hit a patch of oil and stuff it into a wall I'll just walk away. My insurer won't cover the damage and neither will yours (unless you have added me as a named driver, with comprehensive coverage). Apologies to all for taking this thread off topic but I don't like to see bad legal advice being bandied about, most will ignore it and check with a qualified professional, but some may just believe it and act on it. Mods please feel free to remove this post and the paragraph I quoted

You can't insure the venue - its not yours! Any more than I could insure your car

Insurance for what? As I understand it meetings will not be shows or exhibitions open to the general public but meetings of individuals, much like an unincorporated club or association (which is not a legal entity).

Odds are any module will be viewed from both sides.

This sounds like the spare room layout mindset again - trying to fit as much track as possible into a restricted space. Check out the real railway again - no straight lines, no right angles!

45deg and 90deg … err why? Real railways aren't arranged like that (apart from perhaps US city trams where the city is planned gridiron style).

I'd suggest banana plugs/sockets, one for each rail. Decent ones are rated 15A 30VAC (and they are standard for test leads/multimeters, which could come in handy ) Decent 1/4" phonos are 15A rated, 1/8" are generally not. They are more expensive, and you still need one for each rail if modules are to be rotated. And guaranteed someone will connect the tip or ring (whichever is wrong for the spec …) Edit: also spec mains cable for all wiring - its cheap as chips and available everywhere.

Your confusion might have arisen from the mentions of votes, consensus, democracy, referenda etc. I hope (and expect) that AndyY, having canvassed opinion, will read all of it, cherry pick the good suggestions, discard the other 99% and propose a sensible, workable minimum spec. Those that get it can start building modules and planning meets where they get together with others and have fun playing trains/operating prototypically on layouts 50 times the size they can fit in the spare room. The rest can carry on arguing or moaning about the specs online. Everyone's a winner

I'm afraid not we'd moved away by then, although my heart will always be in Brizzle

Late 70s I'd guess as they were universal by the early 80s, although unfortunately not for us cadets who trained on the A41. Those manpacks were pretty heavy and bulky for 14yr old signals guys!

Very nice

Nice job - theres something rather neat about the way the interlocking can be represented by the truth table, by the mechanical locks in the lever frame or by the diodes in your circuit.