DK123GWR

I never realised that there was so much going on behind the scenes of 2999's construction! Just a shame the program didn't spend more time looking at the loco...

It's on the instructions for new 158/9 models, if anybody has a copy to hand. From memory, you need to pull the coaches apart (fairly hard) while they're on the track. I've only coupled that way once though (putting a set 'inside out' to see if it would work) and I don't have a copy of the instructions to hand. I might be wrong!

Perhaps the libertarians amongst us who are unmoved by concerns for passengers' safety might be moved by concerns for the wellbeing of their families? Or the people who witness the accident (especially the driver)? Or perhaps the people who have to clean up? Or, what is trivial to the rest of us, but might be decisive to them, by the economic inefficiency and restrictions on their freedom of movement that might result from the temporary closure of the line in the aftermath?

I have read (on RMWeb) that there were laws against the railway companies building locos for each other, but have never been able to verify it. If it was illegal, can anyone point me to the relevant legislation? I would like to give it a read as I think it would be interesting to explore any loopholes there may have been. Update: Further research reveals this site, referring to an injunction granted by Justice Sir J Jessel on 16th December 1875. I'm sure this will be enough for me to find more information, but that would likely mean using a library, and I'm not doing that tonight.

Off the top of my head: It would be useful for temporary layouts (set-track on the floor of a holiday home, or on the kitchen table when space or circumstances prevent a permanent layout). For university students, you could take a small shunting layout with you without the need for a controller (space in both transport and accomodation can be limited), and without damage to the wiring rendering it useless for the rest of term (this has happened more than once). It might also be useful to have battery powered locos available on (track powered) exhibition layouts when things go awry because you could keep trains running while fixing the electrics. A fully battery powered exhibition layout would be quicker to assemble and dissasemble - get up later and get home sooner. On DC layouts it would simplify the wiring required around stations and yards if the pilot could be fitted with battery power.

Surely the file is sent via Bluetooth? I think the Legacy Dongle (is this what you mean by 'control unit'?) plugs into regular DCC controllers so you can control non-Bluetooth (Bluetoothless?) DCC locos from the app.

And Hornby had the page for a new product/range up on their website (albeit without any specific items listed), since taken down.

I'm not sure that's fair. They were perfectly transparent about how the images were produced: As for 'theft', I've little knowledge of copyright law, its application here, or the extent of Midjourney's compliance with it. However, if the algorithm were only trained on images in the public domain (or with sufficiently liberal licencing conditions) then surely there would surely be no risk of theft.

I have a fun idea for an imaginary locomotive: one that would work if air wasn't affected by gravity. Obviously, it can't use combustion, whether of coal, wood, diesel, unicorn hair, or fairy dust (there's no oxygen). And if anything on the inside was pressurised it would have to be built like a spacecraft to stop it exploding (no atmospheric pressure). And of course it wouldn't be designed by or for humans (again, a small problem with a lack of oxygen). And it would need to be equipped with a light-based warning system (because sound waves from horns and bells won't get that far in a vaccuum). But I would hazard a guess that solar power would be rather more effective without that pesky atmosphere getting in the way, so perhaps that's a promising avenue for the power supply?

I've got a cracker, but it's a cheesy one...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/125650211313?hash=item1d415611f1:g:XnYAAOSw8iZjqbuH&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAA0AklLg5kGSI5YSStApvj%2FHeudzIr7IGb%2BjANOTanr8zJ7CEQCbngjj06Ud%2BoqAXbXZ8jgnPuprV9tCP7SAFfhk09GAJYsTS1ob%2FlAGQvK%2F0vPpiQXo1iCIfkfZ%2BavgfnS%2FkIyERrRM6pAQxwTHnA3EmjoLWSDZJFfDnfpNIlxpjhcZlwh0f4XbiI4KCTq2mJdy3loThFDghq9moDiJX5GhryUwIiLJjChCwMMzppw70dsK0zASWVlkrl8c78Zh77XkzPHIxsHiNvH55Xz0Ud68I%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR5TA6basYQ "I will also include a Model Rail article on detailing an Autocoach and a Wikipedia article on Autocoaches." I claim my prize! In case anybody was worried about missing out, it turns out you can access Wikipedia for free online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_Autocoach

What sort of saw would you recommend for cutting through a chassis like this?

The 71xx, a Manor-based tank engine, has been imagined several times before on this thread. I've always liked the idea and had a poorly Airfix Large Prairie, so when a Bachmann Manor with a Hornby Grange chassis underneath turned up cheap on ebay, I decided to give it a go. This is where we stand so far (there's a bit more tidying up to do, but then it'll be time to paint, after which it might look considerably worse).

But then being 'cab forwards' only makes the driver's view worse!

I think you're all missing the point - this is entertainment! It's an excuse for a few jokes, both self-deprecating (I think that's the main reason @woodenhead's comment was included) but also at the expense of gatekeeping types. And as for this (I've only included the bits where a thought popped into my head quickly): 1) You're really comparing a man running his trains on the carpet to an out-of-control racist conspiracy theorist who wants to be the US President? 2) As he says, his large collection of working locos is fairly reasonable evidence. What evidence would you like to see? A peer-reviewed paper publiched in an academic journal? At any rate, he does put his money (trains) where his mouth is - if running them on the carpet is problematic then he will suffer too. And he did acknowlege that the present situation wasn't ideal, but explained why it's the best for his circumstances. 3) Presumably you've never had the pleasure of working with politicians? Sure, a lot of local councillor-type people are genuine, and probably some MPs too. On the other hand, I've spent a few years now around the sorts of people who would like to be in Cabinet in a few decades, and I've spent a little time around the office of my own MP (now in Cabinet). I know what a master manipulator looks like. They are all ambitious, amoral, and at times vindictive narcissists, and I would be very surprised if anyone of their 'talents' was interested in playing trains on YouTube when there are far more profiatble avenues available to them. Also, why have you been watching him for 10 years if he makes you so miserable?

Except of course that a lower speed limit makes roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists (hence making them more attractive) and at the same time making travelling by car less attractive, hence encouraging modal shift away from cars and towards active and public transport (though the latter is of course limited by poor service in many areas, but the remedy for that is better service). The problem that we have with transport policy is that there are two many people who believe we should optimise conditions for the modes of transport that people currently use,on the journeys that they currently use. A coherent strategy would start by asking how people would travel in the best acheivable society, and then considering what changes need to be made to bring that about. In reality, that means the goal should be to get people out of their cars wherever possible. The sorts of measures that I would use to bring this about are: - Pedestrianisation of urban centres - An extensive and joined up network of cycleways, ideally segregated from both pedestrians and cars - Redesigning roads and the highway code to give pedestrians and cyclists priority over cars wherever possible - Provision of the best possible bus service, at affordable prices - The above, for trains - Public transport to be as accessible as possible for disabled people - Measures to disincentivise car use (lower speed limits, road pricing, congestion charging, LTNs, traffic filters, etc.) implemented to suit local circumstances - Reforming planning processes to ensure that as many people as possible have shops, schools, etc. within walking or cycling distance (obviously, this won't have an immediate impact but it's perhaps the most important in the long run) Obviously, you can't completely eliminate cars. For instance, they will continue to be essential in rural areas and for some people with disabilities, whose transport needs cannot be adequately addressed by the policies above. The emergency services will need to be able to use motorised vehicles as well. However, if the above policies (and I've probably missed some obvious ones) are implemented properly then it may actually improve the experience of those who need to use cars, due to modal shift by others reducing congestion. I would ensure that those who need a car due to disability are exempt from measures such as road pricing, etc., so that they aren't unfairly punished for circumstances which are beyond their control. Of the places I know, Oxford is probably the one which probably deserves the most recognition. Some of the main roads (Iffley Road and Botley Road spring to mind) could perhaps be made more cyclist friendly, but North Oxford has decent cycle lanes (or bus lanes which double up as cycle lanes) on the main roads, quiet residential streets which provide alternative routes, and bridges/underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists at many key locations. There seems to be a decent bus service (though I don't have much reason to use it) and the rail links are of course fantastic, and likely to get better with EWR and Cowley trains in the future. (It would also help if cyclists would stop at red lights and pedestrians would stay off of cycle paths, but that's probably a result of the high concentration of people who think they're above the highway code (and rules in general) because they went to a posh school)

I feel that a more mature audience may have greater appreciation for the references contained in the following passage to a television programme which, though once pervasive in British popular culture, may not have been encountered by a sufficiently high proportion of people from my own generation for the references to be widely understood by the relatively juvenile (though politically astute) audience for which it was originally composed: I note that Margaret Thatcher, having lost one Chancellor following her refusal to acqiuesce to his demands that the United Kingdom should join the European Exchange Rate mechanism, appointed a replacement who continued to press the issue with equal vigour, and was eventually forced to put aside her concerns about the matter in question and make concessions to him due to the risk that he might, if his views were not given the consideration he felt that they deserved, succeed his predeccessor in resigning as Chancellor, and precipitate the collapse of the Government. Being aware of Mrs Thatcher's preferences regarding a particular satirical situation comedy which had been broadcast during her premiership, I concluded, albeit without definitive evidence, that there was an exceptionally high probability that she was aware of the remarks of a senior civil servant who featured prominently in the aforementioned programme and who, paraphrasing a great literary figure sadly persecuted by the archaic laws then in existence, but now repealed, referred to the perils of losing two cabinet ministers being seen as carelessness, in contrast to the possibility that losing a first may be regarded as a mere misfortune. Additionally recalling that many tutors at this university complain, with surprising frequency, about the prosaic and repetetive nature of the essays with which they are presented by their students, and which they are therefore required to read, I determined that it was worthwhile taking time to consider whether, given the well-known affection that Mrs Thatcher had for the aforementioned programme, and the situation that arose in a particular episode which has been discussed above at great length (though, one can only hope, in a manner which has minimised the quanity of unnessesary circumlocution) it would be appropriate to make reference in passing to the aforementioned remarks of the aforementioned senior civil servant in order to introduce an element of humour to my essay which may elicit a degree of goodwill from my own tutor. However, having now had time to take into account the full range of variables in play, most significantly the hazardous prospect that references to such whimsical situations may hamper my ability to portray myself as a candidate meriting distinction in the field of serious studies of this country's political history, I have concluded, with regret, that I have no choice but to decide to abstain from the inclusion any references to such unconventional subjects as this in academic writing.

Usually I would agree, but somebody (I think it was actually you) once suggested shortening set track points by cutting the rails on the two diverging routes in order to save move the tracks closer together. The few modern locos* I have tested on an Inglenook which uses points modified in this way have usually not had problems with th radius (and the track is very poorly laid) so this setup may be suitable for a depot layout. I would guess that minimising the length of the curve (when it's already shorter than the loco) reduces the amount that bogies need to pivot, which may help. *Vi Trains 47, Bachmann 08, new tooling Hornby King, Castle, and 61xx

R3912/R3913 (if I've copied that correctly) were GBRF 20s, both released over the last couple of years.

Kronenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia. I assume that it is in some way connected to the dam (the grass bank on the right).

But why not just go somewhere local and claim it as expenses?

I know that it's correct for that prototype and it wasn't a criticism, but an observation that as a result the chassis could be repurposed for larger four-coupled locos (they're right, or at least close enough, for a City too) or for earlier locos (still small but with larger driving wheels). Hence, knowing what wheels, if any, can be easily swapped in would allow even a beginner to use the chassis as the basis for very different models.

It's occurred to me that as pugbashing can be a useful introduction to modelling, it might be helpful to cover some simple techniques that can be used to improve or alter the chassis. I'm thinking mainly of modifications which use fairly cheap parts and are fairly easy to do with a minimum of tools (perhaps a file, tweezers, sharp knife, and small screwdrivers) - the sorts of things people can use in order to try their hand without making a large financial commitment. To begin with, wheel swaps. The Horby 0-4-0's wheelbase is quite long for such a small loco. Fortunately, this means that the wheels can be changed for those of a larger diameter in order to use the chassis as the basis for something completely different. It is often necessary to cut or file off the brake shoes first. The simplest approach from here would involve finding wheels which fit onto the original axles - does anyone know of a locomotive which can donate wheels for a direct swap like this? The second option is to find a locomotive with the same axle diameter as the originals and move the whole wheel/axle/gear assembly into the old chassis. For example, the chassis on the 4-4-0 uses '70s Hornby Flying Scotsman parts (the gap in the floor had to be filed to accomodate the larger gear. The advantage of this is of course greater flexibility, the downside that it will often require a new motor (or at least motor mount) , which the beginner may struggle to produce reliably (this one runs, but very badly). I have also seen on this thread cylinders which have been modified by removing the portion attatched to the body and wrapping the rest in thin Plasticard to bulk them out, which did a very good job of obscuring the loco's origins. Unfortunately, I can't find the post right now. Another change which is often effective is the addition of a proper crosshead and slidebar (or even outside valve gear) in place of the questionable arrangements Hornby use on the outside cylinder locos. I've not tried this yet (mostly because my bashes so far have all been inside cylinder locos), but perhaps if anyone has done it in a way which requires minimal modifications (and therefore tools) they could share it on this thread for the benefit of others?

A better home might be:

I've noticed that they have started turning down offer that I'd have expected them to accept 6 months ago. It has led to lost sales.