Pete the Elaner

I notice the goods shed has been shifted along to almost the end of the siding. I always question this. Unloading 4-5 wagons in a train requires shuffling them. This is a bit of a pain which is great for a layout if you like shunting, but a real pain in the real world where things needs to be done. Moving the shed along a little (which would be more typical from the plans I have seen) allows more of the train to access the goods shed by simply pushing it further down the line.

It does. I have looked at Newport Pagnell which, for those unaware of it, was on a small branch from Wolverton. The line was 4 miles long with 2 intermediate stations, so single track all the way. Newport Pagnell station had a goods yard beyond the passenger station. The platforms themselves held about 4 coaches, but fitting it onto a 15' layout in OO was about as small as I felt it could go without looking compressed, but you may feel it can be squeezed a little more. There was a book about the branch with some useful photos. It will be out of print but you may be able to find a copy if the station has any potential for you.

That attitude from the police sounds about right. A few years ago, I got off the train after work & witnessed somebody trying to break a bike lock with a hammer & bolster. Somebody was watching him, so he hovered around having a quick bash now & again. I stayed around to support the observer. He called the police & they insisted that they could not send anyone even after he replied "if you come now, you will catch him". The police station in MK is less than a mile from the railway station & traffic is rarely a problem. There seem to be some crimes for which they do not bother with.

Muir of Ord (just W/NW of Inverness) is on a passing loop & trains run on the right through the station. It felt strange but was consistent with the platform information signs.

I have not been there for years, but I used to live near Kirby Cross, in Essex. Services always used to call at separate platforms there too & the platforms/tracks look ok, so I am sure they still do. Most smaller stations like this are unmanned so it would be confusing to have most use the 1 platform then another unexpectedly used the other one without staff there to tell passengers to move across before it arrives. It is also good practise to keep operational lines in regular use where possible.

Another vote here for Gaugemaster. Their controllers give good performance throughout the speed range. Go for their cream coloured range. The black ones are feedback models, which are still good but some motors do not like feedback. They also offer a lifetime guarantee & you will not need to find your receipt for them to honour it. You can find used equipment cheap if you are patient. I found one of their handhelds for sale at a show for £3 last year. It was a newer model too. Their guarantee made this a risk-free bargain.

And also remember that red has a tendency to fade more noticeably than most other colours.

It looks right, but the resistor would need to dissipate a lot of power. V=IR P = VI = IR*I = I^2 * R R = 1.5 so R^2 = 2.25 I = 3 2.25 *3 = 6.75W. That is a big resistor, or a matrix of smaller ones. Either way, it is a waste of power.

I drove over the line at Mursley last week. I knew the track was in place but I also saw a red signal.

Why worry at all? Their geometry is the same, so no compatibility issues there. They are more reliable than insulfrogs. The only difference is that they do not auto isolate, which many view as a disadvantage but I do not. Having dealt with poor contact from point blades, I never rely on them to make contact anyway. I would be happy with a mix of uni & electro. Isolating & re-feeding after every point would make them operationally interchangeable & if I wanted the frogs live, wiring them would be exactly the same process for both types.

You have a DCC decoder in there. A blanking plate is just that; a small plug with some of the pins soldered together. If you are happy with the way it runs, then leave it in place. A DCC fitted loco can run better on DC than a fitted one. This may sound bizarre, but at low speeds, there is a very low voltage between track & wheel. A DCC fitted loco needs a little more voltage to get going, so this gives a little more push across the wheel/rail connection. A feedback controller or one with a pulsed output (like an H&M one on half wave rectification) can damage the decoder.

There are some times when a cleaning block is simply impractical anyway: Some tunnels are inaccessible. It is not always possible to build them with removable tops. Overhead wires are very fragile (unless you make them overscale). Running a cleaning block on track below them is likely to cause damage. I have also read that IPA can attract dirt because it is a polar chemical. Contact cleaner is designed to provide a clean electrical connection. Surely that is exactly what we are looking for?

I know less about the others but the advantages of the NCE are: It is popular. Many of us can answer questions about it, both online & at local clubs. I feel this is a very underrated point to consider. It is modular. With a Powercab, you only pay for the basic kit & if you want something extra (programming track, USB connection for your computer, upgrade to 5A), you only pay for the component you want. If you were to upgrade it to have the same features as a Powerpro, you will not be paying much, if anything more than buying the full Powerpro to start with. It is well featured: You can access 4 digit addressing, 28 loco functions, you can feed it commands from a computer or mimic panel. Like most things, you adapt to it; using the benefits & finding the ways around the limitations without actually realising they are limitations.

It is unfair that cars sometimes need extra 'regulation limited' components or expensive rebuilding. I understand and accept why the limits exist so would not like to see their removal, but it does show why the rules have become complicated. With regard to the Alonso/Russell incident, it is worth noting that the stewards did not accuse Alonso of doing it intentionally, but merely that his actions were erratic & therefore dangerous. It is virtually impossible to prove or disprove intent, so the rules are deliberately written to not require it. This is not the same as claiming the stewards stating it was unintentional. There is no need for them to get into a debate in what they considered his intention to be, so they will not comment on it. Not publicly anyway.

I think that they were making a point to their own team that their car is well down on pace.

I had a colleague with a similar attitude when we were given a bonus. It was a good one, something like £3k. Him: "Not worth anything. The taxman will take most of it" Me: "Er, about 30%, which will still leave us with £2k each. I'll welcome that thank you." The government does seem to be leaving a huge mess for the next one. "Square One" will be a huge improvement over what we have now.

The stewards disagree with you. Their ruling indicates that drivers should be racing & that suddenly slowing is an unfair way to trick those following. The stewards opinion is more important than that of those of the (average?) viewer. I have looked through the F1 sporting regs but guidelines on acceptable racing practices seem to be elsewhere. I do not believe in 'etiquette' & 'unwritten rules'. The rules should define everything which is allowed & stewards (or umpires/referees in other sports) should never have to arbitrarily decide on something not covered by the rules.

Apart from the reverse loop which has already been mentioned & with care, is not a problem, you have gone for a fairly simple design. That is an excellent decision. Getting something running under its own power is a huge motivation boost & a simple design means you will achieve this more quickly. You will also learn as you go. This is not a bad thing, but a complex layout leaves things looking a little inconsistent & makes restarting a huge decision. With a more simple layout, updating your earlier work or even starting again are both much more achievable options.

There are (or at least were) conversion parts available, from Keen Systems I believe. I would rather hack about an older Mk4 but their basic shape looks ok so they can be updated quite well with some detailing. The new Mk4 tooling may well in time be re-used for different liveries. This is not as likely for the 89 because Accurascale are doing all variations of it in 1 batch, so it may be a case of buying it while you can.

What are you trying to model? A 4 platform station with main line services would look wrong if they were only long enough for 4 coaches. You could hide part of a station under a building though. A branch line would look fine if that is your thing. I have seen designs full of track & others with minimal track but plenty of scenery. Neither one is wrong, right, better or worse; simply a choice.

Always blame the cyclist.

Correct on both counts. Surely it is good enough to be exhibited as a layout? It currently has no fiddle yard (I am sure these can easily be built). David does not consider himself a good modeller but, on the evidence of what he has built, I disagree. I would rather be able to see it properly, not as part of a society stand.

Do you level it before each print? I levelled mine when it was new, but not after the first print. Subsequent prints were disappointing, so I now do it every time. I assume that taking off the print plate to remove the previous print will move it a little? When you think about how the print process works, it makes sense that levelling it is crucial. It should be an easy process too (It is with my Anycubic).

As others have said, Google Maps is a great place to start, but you may need more space than you think. How much do you want to copy a real location? Search hard & you will find somewhere which can be represented in a small space. You may have to forgo things like shunting, pointwork, signalling or a station (which would be sacrilege to some), but is this worth it to you? I found somewhere on the WCML in a cutting between tunnels & a bridge. It has no pointwork, no shunting potential, not even the ability to signal check a main line service. There is a station but it is on the main lines. This suits me fine because I prefer tinkering with it to running, but it would be a non-starter for most.

That is why some recommend solid state juicers instead of relay ones.