Harlequin

How about a sand furnace? It would need to be alongside a track, near the engine shed.

Great to hear from you, Martin. It sounds like you’re back on track.

No, the firebox “flicker” is run by electronics on the loco and is just a regular cycle between the two LEDs. This is one of the model’s flaws. I guess it’s done that way so that it “flickers” under DC control too.

Ah, interesting... Sounds like you have some crossover between the firebox light circuit and the motor circuit. Maybe there are some trapped wires somewhere with their insulation stripped away and making unwanted contact? Or bad soldering around the carrier board socket?

Wierd... Does anything look odd on the decoder or the carrier board?

This all sounds very odd and to work out what's going on you need to eliminate some of the variables. What decoder are you using now? If you put the same decider in another loco does that loco behave the same? If you put a different decoder in the Mogul does it behave badly? Etc., etc... The firebox light is very dim even when it's working properly. Are you using F0 to turn it on?

That all sounds like much more fertile territory. It wasn't my intention to push you towards Launceston, Ben. It was just that I saw some similarities that I thought resolved some of the problems with your earlier plans.

"Finetrax" is, erm, fine but... "Eezed Build" is a bit awkward as a name for the range... Sorry for nit-picking.

Lots of info here:

Who has “run a mile”? The pertinent questions have all been asked and answered for now. I’m sure there will be more activity when there’s more information.

In a topic called "2021 Hopes" only @rovex has mentioned the obvious choice: How about a GWR 2021 class 0-6-0 saddle tank - not as later converted to pannier tanks, we've got enough of those! Surely the perfect loco to release next year!? Domed or domeless with a few variations of cab, bunker and chimney styles, ideally. Hornby have done well with small saddle tank locos recently and this would follow-up that trend with a loco that could find a place in many GWR layouts, ringing the changes a bit from the ubiquitous panniers. (Did any survive into BR ownership in saddle tank form?)

Yes, Gordon set out the maths above: This is really the core issue with helices, which others have already touched on in this topic: To achieve the gradients required to make them work reliably, without resorting to the powerbase solution, they have to be physically large and that is often impractical in the space that most UK-based modellers have available. And as Gordon and others have pointed out, an arguably neater solution is a "round the room" level change ramp that is combined into the general layout design.

Will do. Thanks. Edit: Done.

Unfortunately steam pipes aren't listed amongst the spare parts in the manual so if we simply wait we're likely to be disappointed. Since the pre-publicity shots showed 6385 with external steam pipes and since we know that that loco had them before it received the roundel livery, why are they not on the production model? I think both questions deserve some official response.

That's the word I was looking for, thanks. It wouldn't come to me earlier.

I did wonder... The "Ben" account seemed to be recent so I thought I'd venture the question. Someone from Dapol must monitor this forum, surely? They seem to have made Dapol Digest read-only so I couldn't ask the question there. Any suggestions of where I should ask to get a public response? Or if they don't want to talk to the general public could you ask them for an official response, @AY Mod?

Here's my beautiful cat, Carrie, taking possession of the line today: And here's the carnage behind her: "Derailment? I don't know what you're talking about!"

@DapolDave @DapolAndy @Ben Dapol Can you explain why the model of 6385 does not have outside steam pipes, please? Is there any possibility you might supply steam pipes as a spare part through DCC Supplies? (At the moment their Mogul page is still empty.) Thanks,

Hi Wayne and Patrick, Thanks for the prototype demo. This is a potentially very exciting development! It looks great but of course that's only half the story. The acid question is how well does it work? It would be great to see some rolling stock passing through it, if possible. Especially things that are known to be finicky like the front bogies/ponies of many locos. (BTW: I notice a step in the rail level after the frog in Patrick's photos.) Patrick's build demo shows a very simple electrical setup of the turnout. That's fair enough, but does (could?) the kit allow for insulating gaps in the rails, without requiring the use of ugly plastic fishplates? Maybe in positions to do something akin to a "unifrog" turnout?

Yes I know, but I think that was in reference to stations that didn't have a specific goods acceptance line. Where a station has a goods acceptance line, like this one, and the purpose of it is to allow both passenger and goods to be handled in the station at the same time, then it would be signalled appropriately. I'll try to find a signalling diagram for Launceston to see how it really worked.

Hi Ben, The goods run round, or goods loop, is the magenta one (on a tweaked version of your plan): The goods train would run directly into the goods loop or possibly into the platform if it was empty. The signalling should allow either type of arrival so that goods trains can arrive and be dealt with when there are passenger trains in the station or vice versa. It would then get shunted from there into various sidings (the brake van probably being left in the spur at the end of the middle road, the release road, while that's going on). You can probably see why I suggested lengthening it. In that location it shares the release line with the platform and because it would get freed up quite quickly it doesn't get in the way of access to the shed too much. (Lambourn had a similar arrangement.) You might need to give the cattle dock more room in that position but it's quite hidden in that back corner and you could instead make it low relief. Perhaps just show the front fencing with some overhanging foliage to disguise the lack of a back. I'm thinking that there is only one passenger platform side. The goods shed side of the platform would have a fence along it. (See Moretonhampstead.) Two passenger platforms in a little station like this would be very unusual unless it was very busy for some reason. Model BLTs often have more platform capacity than reality, admittedly, but you're fighting for space here and something's got to give! There is just about space for a short extra goods siding, shown in cyan above. That gives you a bit more capacity while still allowing good vehicle access to the yard and the back of the shed. P.S. I am GWR biased but I think these basic principles apply whatever company you're modelling. It would be worth checking with an SR expert, though. P.P.S. Wallingford is a good example of a private industry siding (a dairy) kicking back off the main line just outside the station. Milk tankers were brought in with the goods train and then worked back up the line to the dairy.

So, Neal... What do you think of the YouChoos 43XX chuff sound? Mine sounds exactly the same even though we have slightly different sound installations. I've also attached a big speaker with a good frequency response, just as a test, and it still sounded the same. So I don't think the installations are affecting the chuff sound. I think it's a bit wimpy, especially compared to the video that was posted in the Dapol Mogul topic today... Not up to YouChoos usual standards.

Very nice sounds but very confusing for the first few moments where there are two locos running simultaneously with only one in view!

Peco don't make any claims about the crossing angle, which as you say, is not 12° on the Large and the Curved points. All they say is that where the centre lines are 1 inch apart the angle will be 12° and in that respect those turnouts do meet the standard.