Grovenor

The code 60 is about 7% oversize for TT3 and 20% oversize for TT120, code 40 is of course undersize approx 15%. You are going to need to decide your personal compromise. Templot 3D printing has predefined chairs for 4mm and 7mm but you can input details for any other size, you will need to be able to measure the rail accurately.

Note the Peco track is meant to be flat bottom so would not be code 48 anyway. But the rail they have used is the same rail as used for their N gauge and is really code 80 with a double foot so the bottom 25 thou is embedded in the sleepers leaving the top 55 thou looking like normal flat bottom rail, not really suitable for DIY track.

Since 1:120 is a brand new scale for british modelling and so far is effectively RTR only and none of the makers are producing track with scale rails let alone bullhead you are going to have to compromise. The established scales for british buildrs are 2mm to the foot and 3mm to the foot. 1:120 sits in between so available rail will be either to small or to big. As an example here are the dimensions of BS95R bullhead rails. Prototype, 2mm(1:152), TT(1:120), TT3(1:101.6) inch, mm, code, mm, code, mm, code, mm Rail height, 5.7, 145, 38, 0.95, 48, 1.21, 56, 1.43 Head width, 2.75, 70, 18, 0.46, 23, 0.58, 27, 0.69 NB. Code = thousandth of an inch.

Not far back actually.

In the case in question the loco was not exactly 'propelling' the report makes clear that the driver just released the brakes and had no need to open the throttle as gravity moved the train. The shunter was controlling the brakes from his end and had the train sliding before the impact.

Quite an eye opening report on the complexities of operating a busy terminal with antiquated signalling.

Euston must be the worst case of a bank off the platform end, enough that it was originally provided with cable haulage. But at one of the rebuilds the backing out roads were provided so that the coaches could be reversed into the platforms by the train engine so there would not be a loco in there to do any banking. Refer http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalling/plans/Euston-a.gif

Generally there are two main options, 1. Make the joint on the centre crankpin with each rod half thickness at the crankpin, make the protoype joint just cosmetic. 2. Make the joint where the prototype does. a. If using two layer rods make a half joint as 1 above fixed with a pin soldered to the rear half or riveted. b. If using 3 layer rods solder a pin to the centre layer then fit front and back layers round it and solder the layers together. Either 1 or 2 will work, experienced modellers tend to prefer 2. 2b makes a very nice joint if you can get appropriate etched rods. Etched rods can be had from Alan Gibson, Bill Bedford, Lanarkshire Models and Supplies and no doubt others.

And what was the problem with the other locos that derailed? Your first post said some of your locos and the loco pictured was said to be one of those.

Also the same enlargement shows that the alignment of tracks where the curved rail joins to the point is poor, showing a distinct gap in the plastic base on the black wire side. This will cause the wheel flanges to run to that side approaching the point and thus more likely to catch on the switch rail Andy refers to. You need to fix both problems.

The GC had a pumping station and tank just east of Guide Bridge taking water from the Peak Forest canal where the line crossed it. Beautifully kept pump etc when I visited during my railway training in 1959/60.

Yes, exactly.

From what has been said the unreliability has more to do with the drivers, and given how long they have had these sets a lack of trained drivers would seem to indicate a management failure. Equally given how long they have been in service there should surely be a liability on the manufacturers and lessors which TPE should be managing.

Given the very variable conversion factors betwen the imperial and metric columns in that table one wonders what tolerances they worked to and which column was used in manufacture?. Which column of dimensions did your wheels 'exactly' match? It can't be both.

Given in detail in Kevin's link, D for Defibrillator.

Quite an exaggeration to call that a stadium.

Doesn't look like many people read that request. 😒

There seems to be a bit of confusion between filament buld and LED in the question. Traditional banner repeaters were originally lit by oil lamps with the lamp externally at the back so the actual banner had glass both sides. These could be converted to filament bulbs and would not look any different. But banner signals designed for electric lamps would be glass on the front only and had a dome shaped housing at the rear for the lamp and optics. Usage of these would be dependent on the availability of power supplies but would have been used with colour lights as power would be available. Not sure of dates but I would think from sometime in the 1920s/30s. So definately what you would ecpect in the 70s.

In the 70s I'm pretty sure they would have been real banner repeaters, the LED version possibly late 90s. Ones with green LEDs not till this century.

The original suggestion here was for brand new development above the new Euston. So problems with converting redundant offices are irrelevant. Whether anyone could invest in such for 50 years of rent is the more relevant issue. I would doubt that they could be built as "affordable", perhaps very high end?

If we are prepared to subscribe.

Turning right onto a roundabout is a rather extreme form of poor lane keeping. 🤨

Exactly, no rotation needed, and a better plan, watering facilities can be provided on the loop if required for bankers.

Yet the self same delays are imposed by the government supposedly to save costs. 😆