GoingUnderground

ESU LLC in the USA have recently announced via youTube that the next firmware update for the CabControl will allow the use of user created loco icons, a feature that's been available to ECoS owners for many years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzhVn5GF4Z0

Back when the LS3.5 was ESU's pride and joy, they recommended 16-18V for use with H0/OO, and the PSU that they supplied with my first ECoS had a fixed output of around 17V. So I wouldn't have expected you to have overheating problems with an LS3.5 from what you've described unless the LS was faulty. However as the overheating seems to affect many of your decoders that suggests that the fault lies outside of the decoders. However, has it occcurred to you that the PSU might be faulty? I don't have a Multimaus but if you cannot adjust the output voltage using the Multimaus because it lacks the functionaility to adjust the voltage, then all it is doing is passing through the input voltage from your power brick, bar a slight voltage drop due to the power being taken by the Multimaus itself. Therefore it makes me wonder if your problem is a faulty PSU that for some reason is putting out too high a voltage. PSU's do fail from time to time, but I don't know whether that can include going over-voltage. I'd look at replacing the PSU.

And the name Triang wasn't dropped, it was sold on by the Receiver of Lines Bros to a company other than DCM, DCM having bought Rovex, which owned the Hornby name, from the Receiver. So it could no longer be used by Rovex/DCM as they didn't own it. I would take issue with the statement that the body was "..not Triang in any sense...". Rovex was very much alive and well and successful in the 1970s designing and producing models in the Margate factory which were being sold under the Hornby Railways brand. It was a Margate product and the models produced in the 1970s were Rovex products, just read the packaging from that era. The only connection that any of the models of the Hornby Railways era had with Hornby and Hornby Dublo was the Hornby name. As a proud owner of Triang Railways models from 1959 it really hurt to see Rovex products called Hornby, it felt like a betrayal. I still get annoyed even today with the way that the company seems to be slightly ashamed of its Rovex origins. So, to be truly accurate, the coach body was never a Triang Railways nor a Triang Hornby branded item as it was only produced after the name change to Hornby Railways.

Comment by German speaking users of ESU's own forum suggests that the new ECoS has been released as components used in the current version are no longer readily obtainable, forcing a redesign of the board to suit alternative components. Early reports say that the input and output connections are the same. So you may be disappointed if you were hoping that the new version would have a USB socket for updating the firmware, same as the CabControl. Despite calling it the 2.5, the ESU part number is currently being shown as 50220, plenty of scope for confusion in the future here. At least when ESU updated the ECoS 2 to the 2.1 they gave it a consistent part number 50210.

Thank you for the correction. I'm not at home at the moment so I was working off my memory of events over 10 years ago so I couldn't refer to the original models and their packaging to check my facts. But it remains that there have been models commissioned by the LTM over the past 20 years many of which have not been publicised. They commissioned a rerun of the OOC Feltham Tram to celebrate (if that's the right word) the last Feltham to run in London No. 2079 in 1951. That's probably another relatively unknown/unpublicised LT model as it's only available through the LT Museum.

I found out about it in the LTM Friends quarterly magazine that arrived this week. I was in London this weekend and took the opportunity to go up to town to buy mine in the shop in Covent Garden. Does anyone know the Bachmann/EFE part number as so far I can't find it on the packaging? Previously they used the 999xx series when sold in 4 car or 2 car IoW sets. Or is it the bar code number 471169? As it was commissioned by the LT Museum Bachmann may well be leaving the marketing to the Museum. It's many years ago now, but I think I'm right in saying that they've done that before in Gilbow days with 3 previous LT Museum specials: <> a '38 Stock 4 car Whitechapel set (identifiable by an A suffix on the boxes and a "step" warning sign on the windows) Ref 99931, <> a '38 Stock 4 car Amersham set with the running numbers of the actual 4 car heritage set, identifiable by the mislabelling of the A numbered DM as the "D" end and vice versa, Ref (9)9931/A and <> a '59 Stock 4 car set in unpainted aluminium finish Edgware. (not to be confused with the corporate liveried RWB set with the same destination) Ref 99937. The A stock was well publicised being the first serious 4mm scale RTR LT/LU model when it was released, (the Ever Ready 1950s Standard Stock has too many errors even for it's day to be considered a serious model IMHO). I think that the the 3 renumbered A Stock subsequent releases for the LT Museum are much less well known. The first 2 were renumbered versions of the full 8 cars (to move excess stock) whilst the most recent being a rerun 4 car set at £595 (ouch) without the option of adding the additional cars to create a 7 or 8 car set. I don't know if Bachmann publicised them at the time of have left that task to the Museum. There has also been 57xx pannier model commissioned by the Museum of L94, Ref 31-903, not to be confused with the other L94 commissioned by Kernow I think it was, 32-217Z. The Museum commissioned model is virtually unknown which probably explains why it was duplicated by another commissioned model.

I don't normally spread unsubstantiated rumours, but there has been a passing mention on the ESU website forum of an ECoS "50220". This isn't too surprising as the availability of components must be pusing ESU towards internal changes to the ECoS even if they feel that the design concept of a twin "Duette" style full colour console is still valid. The model shop listing it calls it the "ECoS 2.5" and the illustration shows what looks like an externally unchanged ECoS, but that could, of course, just be because the shop doesn't have an ilustration of the potential new model itself and is using a stock photo of the current ECoS 2.1. If there is an updated ECoS on the way I wouldn't let it discourage me from buying an existing ECoS 2.1 as when ESU launched the colour ECoS 2 over 13 years ago they gave a commitment to existing owners of the original monochrome ECoS 50000 to keep developing the firmware for the monochrome ECoS. So far they have kept their word, and judging by this past precedent one's investment in an ECoS 2.1 looks to be secure. However, there will obviously come a point when it is not commercially viable to keep supporting the older monochrome model 50000 simply because of a declining user base.

I wasn't initially interested in the 4mm Cravens 1960 Tube stock, and missed it whilst Phil was still around. I did ask him sometime last year if he was going to rerun it at all. So I'd be interested in a set if that were to reappear. I also have one of Phil's 7mm MetroVic bodies, nothing else, just the body. I was intending to try to scratch build the bogies, footplate, etc and source buffers, couplings and wheelsets myself with the aim of producing a static model, another unstarted project. But if anyone is going to restart making the MetroVic Bo-Bo in 7mm I'd be interested in getting the kit, but without the body, to complete it as a fully running model.

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, I had a look but couldn't find a reference to it. Whilst at the Warley show last month I came across a 3D printed "tender" for the 0-6-0 Sentinels on the London Transport Traction Group stand. The tender is made by CDC design, well known for the Street Level Models card kits. So if you want to run one of Hornby's 0-6-0 LT Sentinels or one of the old Knightwing kit ones but don't fancy making one from scrratch you now have a solution.. It is called a"kit" but it comples complete with the buffer beam painted and the wheelsets in situ. The handrails are printed in white and all you have to do is insert them into the holes provided on the model. It is modelled with the folding buffers in a fixed position, so comes in 3 "flavours", buffers down, buffers folded, and one up one down. For the record, I have no connection with LTTG or CDC Design.

Thank you for the update Arun.

Yes, when I spoke to him he did mention that changes were on the way for Mobile Control 2, but didn't go into details. I'm not surprised that the processor and Android version is changing. Even Android 6 used on later MC2s must be totally defunct by now.

I'm not sure that I'd want to try measuring the resistance on a DCC layout even if the power is off if the controller is still connected to the layout. To measure the resistance you need a power source IIRC, which will be the battery inside the multimeter as resistance is calculated by dividing the voltage by the current flowing. AFAIK this still applies even to modern digitial multimeters. So I'd disconnect the DCC controller from the layout first to eliminate any risk of damaging it by exposing it to the power source in the multimeter. I know that on powering up most, if not all, DCC controllers isolate the output terminals from the internal electronics until the system has stabilised, but I still wouldn't want to risk it. The resistance will only be infinite if there is absolutely nothing connected to the DCC bus or to the rails such as accessory decoders or most reversing loop modules, and nothing that takes power in anything sitting on the rails such as loco or interior lighting decoders or interior lighting taking its power straight from the rails or resistors between coach or wagon wheels to trigger occupancy detectors. Moisture from the glue in in newly laid ballast can also bridge the insulation between the rails as others have already said.

Turning up early at STP just fills up the place and puts cash in the pockets of the coffee shops, burger bars, M&S etc. You might as well stay at home and keep the cash in your pocket. In that case, please stay off all roads, pavements, footpaths, railways etc. that my taxes have paid for if yiy're so keen on oaying yoyr own way. Make your own arrangements for personal security when you're out and about. And expect your state pension and access to medical care to be limited to your own personal contributions through your N I contributions.

Please ignore the bixes, I was going to quote Ron but changed my mind and can't delete the damned quote boxes, and I'm not specifically responding to his comments, so apologies to Ron and for any confusion. I have certainly been through passport control at STP inbound from France. I think it was on ski trains from Bourg St Maurice and Moutiers. There were the baggage checks at Bourg & Moutiers but no UK passport control there and no onboard passport checks. Chucking UK bound folks out at Lille for UK passport control was the solution, but that is very passenger unfriendly as it adds an hour to the journey time. It also begs the question whether Lille could cope with more passport checks and trains emptying out. Comments such as "turn up earlier" are just facile. Early arrivers simply get in the way of those turning up in time and take up space in the departure lounge. It used to be that all passengers could use all gates, excluding Business, but train specific queues seemed to be the norm back in 2019 presumably to stop early arrivers getting in the way of others arriving on time. I'm not surprised that there were no queues at 7am because you'd be in the first departures of the day so there were no early arrivers to get in the way. Incidentally, the fastest trip that I ever had through STP was at 7am a week after the 1st Chunnel fire. Eurostar told folks to turn up as early as they could. We were booked on a mid-morning train but turned up just before 7 as we were catching an afternoon train from Gare du Lyon which we didn't want to miss. Eurostar instantly rebooked us on the 1st Paris- bound train. We went through security etc very rapidly and went straight up on to the platform and onto the train, eaving STP at about 7:15 IIRC. We ended up spending 2 hours in the sunshine with a bevvy or two at aa pavement cafe near the Gare du Lyon The whole layout of the departure and arrivals areas at STP are clearly designed for rapid just in time flowthrough for the Class 373 with a maximum capacity of 750, later 758. Much of any design slack will have been taken up with the introduction of the Class 374/e320 sets seating 902, a 20% increase over the 373. Also I take great exception to the idea that HMG shouldn't fund changes at STP, and smacks of an "I'm all right Jack" mindset. HMG funds almost every road in the UK, footpaths etc through taxation both national and local, not to mention police, prisons, NHS, defence, unemployment and disablement benefits etc. And if money spent at STP eases the pressure at ports and airports then that is IMHO, a capital investment for the future and money well spent for the benefit of us all in one way or another. Rant over. You can all come out now.

No, I don't suppose they have been terribly happy. But the problems are not of their making and I don't think can be readily solved because the departure lounge was designed decades before the complexities introduced by Brexit came into being. It might be possible to smooth out some of the lumps and bumps on incoming services by putting passport control onboard as has been done in the past, but that costs, and I cannot see HMG putting their hands in their pocket to fund that at present. I read that Eurostar have been letting trains go without all the booked passengers simply because it has not been possible to get them through the departure process quickly enough for them to make their trains and delaying the departures so that everyone was on board wasn't a solution. In some ways I'm a bit surprised that they haven't said "B****r it, I'm off. Go find some other mug to run the HS1 services." With an additional operator, the space available at STP for the departure lounge and arrivals would have to be radically expanded by taking out many, if not all of the undercroft shops. Short of evicting the Javelin services, the opportunities for additional platforms seem to be nil unless the Midland Mainline services have their platforms moved even further away from Euston Road to make space for approaches to additional platforms constructed above the undercroft next to the existing ones, with new enlarged departure and arrivals facilities below them in the same fashion as the existing facilities. As a user of the Midland Mainline services from time to time I wouldn't be terribly happy about that, it already feels like you're walking back to the East Mids as it is. But the disruption involved in any sort of redevelopment looks to be horrendous, not to mention the cost, and again I cannot see HMG stumping up the readies as judging by their recent actions the current lot don't apparently believe in public transport by rail. There's also the question of capacity at Paris Gare du Nord for another train company which I read is their stated French terminus as again, as I recall, that used to struggle at times to get folks through passport control and also with available seating in the departure lounge. And I don't think there is spare platform capacity there either nor space to expand short of evicting local services to free up additional platforms. But, as I said, it is now some years since I last passed through Gare du Nord. What would make sense, as others have said, would be for new destinations to be added served by the new operator or by Eurostar from London to free up paths into Gare du Nord.. And finally, are there sufficient free pathways through the Channel Tunnel for the new services? No one has mentioned that potential bottleneck yet, and I can't recall seeing any info about current utilisation levels. I believe that Eurostar already flight some of their services, hence the congestion at times in the departure lounge at STP. One remedy might be to slow down the speeds in the Tunnel to reduce headway and increase capacity but at the expense of longer transit times, if I understand the process correctly. But please correct me if I've got it all wrong.. These must have been issues looked at by DB when they were thinking of opening up direct services from STP to Germany.