Sotto

You can call me Al - Paul Simon

Oh Baby - Status Quo

That's probably it- I was working in the City in 1991 when that happened so I'd have been aware of it. But the report shows the buffers stayed compressed, so rebound cannot have been the issue. I'm going to find out! https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Cannon1991.pdf

I thought those 'new' additional frames were to prevent the buffers pushing back out after they were compressed? I m fairly sure there was an incident (at a London terminal?) where a train hit buffers at low speed, but damage and injury was caused by the rebound. I might be imagining this though!

Be My Lover- Alice Cooper

Form what I hear from my (German) employer, there is an app up and running in Germany. It seems a pity that we could not co operate a bit more rather than trying to do our own thing. To be fair, they are further in the lockdown relaxation process than we are, so we should probably be comparing Germany today against UK on say 1st August, but I expect we will still be lagging behind even on that basis. I do suspect though that Germans are more likely to follow instructions on a subject clearly aimed at public welfare, and carry the phone, enable the app, and do whatever else they have to do for it to be effective.

Yes, I'd already seen that in your narrow gauge thread. I like it! I have been experimenting- the Budget Model Railway people seem to thing you are limited to very small locos in their 18 inch diametre layout- although they do comment that an old Triang Hymek will do it. Actually various older models will do it- especially the old short coaches and short DMUs contemporary to the Hymek. Of course you still have to hide the bends or it looks daft (not sure I care about that) and clearance is an issue, so 0-16.5 is a great solution.

All a bit odd when it's already been scrapped... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53114251

This video was a bit of an eye opener for me- I had always assumed oo gauge needed minimum radius 18 inches- ie diametre 3 feet. With care, obviously not so. A small oo roundy roundy just for fun is now on my list!

Mind Games John Lennon

Last Night a DJ Saved My Life- Indeep

The Sun Always Shines on TV A- Ha

A couple of bicycles? Bound to be some employees arriving by bike.

If you do decide to try polish the easy to find alternative (in your own bathroom) is toothpaste, especially the ones that claim to be 'whitening'. But that doesn't look like fine scratches, and anyway fine scratches occur in use, not in storage, so I expect 34 is right.

I am with you on o-16.5- my last completed layout was o-16.5, but it was deliberately intended as a minimum cost layout using up bits and pieces I already owned + kits and modified oo stock- with hindsight a little more ambition could have lead to something like you describe. As it was, it was just an end to end. This lead to a dangerous interest in O gauge- but I really have room only for a shunting plank. It's the buildings etc that really appeal in this scale so I am not out buying £750+ locos! And I have a fair amount of OO gauge stock currently unused. Realistically I hope to move house next year, at which point i will take stock of available space and decide what to do! If I have room (and funds) my ideal layout would be O gauge with an O-16.5 element. And the obvious thing would be for the )-16.5 to be roundy roundy and the O gauge end to end. But then of course with more space I might just revert to OO and be done with it. I do rather envy those who only want to model in one particular scale!

End to end's seem like the purist option to me somehow, probably because as a child it never occurred to me that a layout could be anything other than a roundy roundy. Now, I would love to have room for a roundy roundy, and I really don't see why that should not be combined with some sidings for shunting. I'll just have to dream!

I have actually got one of those circular levels (for levelling record playing turntables) and had never thought of using it for track laying-- Duh!!

Gloss versus matt is a minefield! It seems to be received wisdom that matt is the way to go for OO and N gauge owing to apparent viewing distances, and it is probably a best approximation, even for clean stock. Consistency again. But back in the real world we have all seen the sun glint off a parked car on a clear day perhaps half a mile away- easily N gauge viewing distance. That would look very odd in model form even if it could be replicated. And then videos of models introduce a third reality- I imagine those tinplates look more realistic in a video than in reality. Certainly that is what I have found when videoing and photographing models, from the 7 year old me photographing Action Man in real snow, to recent times. Then there is the framing effect of video- provided it is done carefully to avoid unwanted background. Nothing spoils the video illusion like bookshelves in the background, but if are you actually standing there. you cannot help but see them.

This has got me thinking about what it is that creates the illusion of reality. There is more to it than just detail and proportion.. We started off here referring to 0-16.5. One thing I like about this is that it allows the use of 1:43 road vehicles. I like real cars- so let’s have them on the layout! But there is an immediate dilemma. Modern ones are more detailed, more easily found, and are (generally) at their claimed scale, so why do I prefer 1960s/70s die casts? One obvious reason is that they require restoration which is itself fun (I wouldn’t pay for a perfect one anyway)) but the main reason I like them is that somehow they look heavier than say a new Oxford diecast. It’s obviously an illusion, but a real car is heavy and so a model car should appear heavy too!

Of course, older models do have another advantage- indefinitely maintainable. I have got some old (up to 50 years old) Triang stuff which still goes and which I can easily take to bits to clean or sort out problems. Recent models- much more complex, and delicate bodies and detail. I wonder whether many of them will still be running in 50 years time? Of course, while they work, modern stuff is so much better, but provided you don't mix the two, consistency is your friend!

I absolutely agree. It's a fundamental problem with RTR and with corresponding buildings (RTP, ready to plant?)- it's so tempting to buy the best you can afford at the time, irrespective of how it fits in. There is definitely something about 0-16.5 - as you say, very little 'off the shelf' so everything ends up consistent. I built a plank 0.16.5 which as you describe was all bashed/kit built stock and improvised buildings (coffee stirrers a wonderful thing!). and I was happy with it- well at least with its appearance- it never ran well but that's another thing altogether- lesson regarding poor track laying well learned!) There is of course a huge risk with 0-16.5 - it leads to O gauge!. When I have space to build a bigger layout I would like to combine the two, but we will see!

Story has some credibility I think! Perhaps that is an unflattering picture though.

Can we have sight of pictures of the porter and Mrs Spooner please. Then we can come to a reasoned conclusion.

Everyday a school day! I thought it might have to do with sleeping hanging upside down from the rafters.. We need humour and camaraderie, especially at the moment.

Indeed, although I still hope to learn what a pendanticist is!