Jump to content

ejstubbs

Members
  • Content Count

    1,623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

924 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

380 profile views
  1. Another possible alternative is the Lanarkshire Models and Supplies track cleaner kits: http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/lanarkshiremodelsandsupplieswebsite_036.htm Can actually be quite discreet, tucked under a brake van where the ballast box should be (assuming the brake van is correct for your layout).
  2. If I am understanding Kaput's problem correctly, the front coupling is supposed to fit to the leading pony truck. I doubt it would be feasible to fit a Parkside mounting block to that without fairly major, and risky, surgery involving cutting away quite a lot of metal. I fitted a Kadee #141 whisker coupler in a #262 gear box to the pony truck on my Hornby Black Five by drilling and tapping a 2-56 hole about 3.5mm in front of the existing coupler mounting screw hole. I may have a photo somewhere... Yep, here they are:
  3. Just luck on my part really: that thread just came up fourth on the list when I did a Google search for "caboose industries" (without the quotes) when I read your first post. FWIW I do find Google better for searching this forum than the forum's own search facility. For example, searching for "caboose industries rmweb" (again, without the quotes) returns another two of three threads which mention that supplier.
  4. There's a previous discussion about the Caboose Industries products here. Seems to be a bit of a consensus towards using the N scale ones for HO - and therefore also OO? Also includes info about the bicycle spoke approach, and others.
  5. I've read on other RMWeb threads (sorry, can't remember which ones offhand) that the Board of Trade or whoever it was made the regulations back in those days had a general aversion to even tank engines being run "backwards". Hence why turntables which, to a more modern eye, would appear both too small to be of any use (i.e. couldn't turn a tender loco) and superfluous anyway (i.e. the line was only served by tank engines) appear to be fairy common in the early track plans of terminus stations. I can imagine that, once the requirement to please the relevant authorities had faded in to history, if a station was operationally satisfactory but didn't need significant investment e.g to handle increased traffic, or to comply with updated regulations or practises, then the turntable would sometimes be left in place long after any actual operational requirement for it had passed - especially if it was on a separate road that could simply be left unused. On a different note: I don't know common they were but I do find that turntables on kick-back roads from the the engine shed look operationally very clumsy. If one assumes that part of the reason for providing one was so that the engine could be turned as part of the run-round process, it would seem very awkward to design quite so much to-ing and fro-ing into the the track layout. (Though, of course, sometimes other factors such as available space would come in to play.)
  6. And some people seemed to think it appropriate to 'have a go' at a 12 year old girl for using disabled toilets. But she decided to do something about it to help everyone in a similar situation: Invisible disability campaign makes tracks. (From https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/grace-s-sign-provides-a-lesson-for-us-all-leader-comment-1-4907931).
  7. I had a quick browse of this issue in Sainsbury's and noticed that, although there is a reference on the cover to "motorising your points", and the contents page as posted by grahame does list page 73 as the location of the article on "motorising your points made easy", the article starting on that page didn't seem to mention motorising points at all, just wiring points for motive power. Did I miss something, or did the advertised content not make it in to this issue?
  8. The use of the term in IT is significantly predated by its use for a simple electrical bus/bus bar/power bus, so there's little doubt that the earlier use was adopted in to the digital world in terms like memory bus, PCI bus and even the Universal Serial Bus.
  9. There's an assertion in Wikipedia that the "bus" bit of "bus bar" has the same derivation as "bus" the vehicle, which is from the Latin "omnibus" meaning "for all" (being dative plural of "omnis" meaning "all"). The suggestion being that a bus bar carries the current for all the devices in a system.
  10. I did wonder why no-one seemed to challenge the "DCC needs less wiring" myth when you first raised the possibility of using DCC a few weeks back. However, having no experience of DCC myself I chose to keep schtum on the grounds that I couldn't possibly offer any evidence to justify a skeptical viewpoint, I'd be relying solely on what I'd read elsewhere. Be that as it may, given that you posted on 21st November that you'd decided to go DCC and ordered the kit, I believe that you may still have time to return it under the Consumer Contracts Regulations. You have 14 days from the date you received the goods to inform the supplier that you no longer want them, and a further 14 days to actually sends the goods back. You will have to pay the return postage but you would be entitled to a full refund of the cost of the goods and the basic cost of delivery to you in the first place ("basic" cost means that the seller is only obliged to refund their standard delivery cost - if you paid extra for e.g. next day delivery, they don't have to refund the extra amount). Given the amount of money involved, and the fact that you are still swithering about whether or not to stick with the decision to go DCC, you might even decide it best to cancel the current order anyway. At least you'd only end up out of pocket by a couple postage costs (i.e. the return postage, and postage on the new order) if you do eventually decide to go DCC. The above is just a reminder about your legal rights, given that you may be about to change your mind about your expensive purchase. As I stated before, I cannot usefully comment on the actual pros and cons of DCC vs DC.
  11. Ken does mention his failure with third rail and adoption of stud contact instead in his book. Going by the photographs of Tyling as a terminus, the studs are not particulary intrusive - though the rather low resolution of the photographs may be a contributory factor in that. He does refer to the collector shoe on his kit-built 14xx squeaking as it went over the studs! The photos of Castle Combe are rather sharper and I can't see any evidence of studs in those, although he doesn't mention in the text that he'd switched to two rail for that layout.
  12. There is a photo in Ken's book of the approach to Tyling before it got 'downsized' as part of his Castle Combe layout. You are correct that it passed under a three-arch road overbridge. The main platform road and the run-round loop went through the centre arch, with the headshunt continuing beyond the bridge parallel to the main line as a spur off the loop. The kick-back siding from the bay platform road went through a narrower arch to one side of the centre arch; the corresponding arch on the other side was semi-buried in the embankment. So your recollection sounds pretty close. (I could scan the photo from the book and post it on here, but I'm not sure whether that would be frowned upon.) BTW, there was mention earlier of a viaduct: the only one that I can find any reference to in the book was on Ken's garden railway, there's no evidence of one on Tyling or Castle Combe.
  13. I've just got hold of a copy of Ken Payne's Peco book One Man's Railways A Lifetime of Modelling, as suggsted by Donw. It does indeed have a track plan of Tyling, both as a terminus and as a through station (the key difference between the two incarnations being the lack of a buffer stop on the platform line!) There is no evidence of an engine shed at Tyling, either in the track plans or the photographs in the book. There was a reasonable sized shed at Castle Coombe, but by the time of that layout Tyling had become little more than a wayside halt with a single siding and a loading bank.
  14. Apologies for going way off topic but it's Slochd, surely? Unless "Schloct" is one of those oddities where the railway has used a name for a location that doesn't quite match what anyone else calls it (ISTR there's another thread somewhere on RMWeb about that). But then the sign by the present day railway* says "Slochd" and I've not found any use of the alternative form on any old maps online - although Google does turn up a small number of hits for it (though vastly outweighed by the 10,000+ hits for "Slochd Summit"). We now return you to normal programming. * According to that Wikipedia article the Gaelic for "Slochd Summit" is "An Sloc" so it doesn't look like "Schloct" could have originated in that language. I find that translation a bit dubious anyway: AFAICT "An" simply means "The". "Sloc" means pit, hole or hollow, and the anglicisation does appear in a number of local place names on the OS map: there is Slochd Mòr ("Mòr" meaning big) and An Slochd Beag ("Beag" meaning small). I suspect it's a reference to the somewhat precipitous layout of the ground in the area. One thought does occur: I believe that Highland pronunciation of "Sloc" would have quite a soft "s" sound at the beginning, which might explain a transliteration in to "sch". Not sure where the terminal "d" comes from in the OS' anglicisation, though.
  15. Ha, beat me to it! I was about to point out that the Borders Railway goes under the bypass, not over it, as Mark seemed to suggest. Although most of the solum was extant out in the countryside, my understanding is that a lot/most of it needed to be fairly comprehensively refurbished/re-engineered to meet current standards. But yes, the penny-pinching that led to most of it being single line was short-sighted in the extreme. (See also: longer trains instead of 6tph for EGIP. I understand that six longer trains per hour is already being looked at as passenger numbers continue to grow.) As for Mr J's waffle about "reversing Beeching", IMO it's simply designed to appeal to the "everything was better in the fifties" world view of certain elements of the British public (by no means solely confined to members and supporters of the his party, I would add, before I risk running foul of rule..er, where are the forum rules these days?) This opinion would appear to be borne out by the discussion above about whether or not any new money would really be involved (and that's before you get on to what could actually be achieved with the sum of money proposed*). * I have a personal theory which I call "the lie of the big number": politicians of all hues like to bandy big-sounding numbers around - preferably ones with an "illion" on the end - as absolute figures. They almost never express things in percentage or proportional terms. I believe the reason is that they know damn well that a non-trivial proportion of the public at large are readily impressed/shocked/frightened/outraged or otherwise misled by such big numbers, and almost never look further in to the detail behind them. There are plenty of recent examples that I could cite, but probably shouldn't on account the Rule That Shall Not Be Numbered(!) ** For clarity, I accept that some people do genuinely have trouble dealing with numbers, but I suspect a far greater proportion are just lazy and/or resistant to awkward facts (see The Backfire Effect - and yes, we're all susceptible to it).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.