Jump to content

A forum area specifically and only for recording ideas and progress of individual's challenge entries in accordance with the challenge.

ECC Wheal Imogen: P4


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Rich, how will you ensure precise alignment between the tracks on the traverser and the layout itself?

 

I have used home-made bolts (such as 2mm diameter rod in 2mm inside diameter tube, the tube being soldered to (possibly extended) copper clad sleepers at the ends of the cassettes and the fixed track at the end of the layout. This also sorts out electrical continuity.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My plan is almost exactly that, although I was not planning to use it for electrical transfer.

 

i have a length of 3mm o/d brass tube and some aluminium rod that fits inside it.  The plan was to solder the tube in place and somehow modify the rod to have some sort of handle to make sliding it easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If the rod is a sufficiently tight fit in the tube, it will deal with both alignment and electrical continuity, but I'd use brass rod rather than aluminium.  If rod is long enough, just put a right angled bend in it. Works well where I've seen it, including Balcombe Viaduct.

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

Some photos from the members day,

 

In short the layout looked good but ran badly.  Lots of stock which had tested ok in January was not running well  on the day, the fiddleyard tracks had alignment issues to the scenic board (while the sliding section had bowed out of alignment with the main board.  All of which needs to be fixed before it goes out again, though it wont be for a while the focus shifts onto Brent through the summer. 

 

Next up is a little modelling on the DEMU stand at Bristol tomorrow, for which I will have some of Wheal Imogen's stock on display.69576294-8204-47BE-A6C6-2FF361FA9ECD.jpeg.1693909a84bd1412a9fcf4d165fc92b2.jpeg00A41CDF-FF82-48CC-9794-BF38852319FB.jpeg.2c71759b8b3d0286bba5360a2b2852d5.jpegB9696532-1C20-4188-A749-E4E86A0A80D6.jpeg.7bb606456ba1d0cf146168707f19900c.jpeg6CB47E5F-2D85-4C35-8C43-BE85F5F89355.jpeg.b52fa32caea0ec89d91f0663eb1182c8.jpeg9C03C039-F9E2-4026-860A-195BDA9EECFD.jpeg.1f6e075e8724bd1bb555f5aff94fc4b3.jpeg8DAFEF13-FCE0-4866-82C7-E5F0C885E0AC.jpeg.cf18834eff709ba15088c0a57be9943c.jpegC1BB583F-8AF4-4A30-9CD7-5E86FB6C603F.jpeg.b068cfd8e90748eeb4953390e3530020.jpeg097F7D8F-3721-4DA4-B316-408DF84F9E4B.jpeg.ff2f91ecfbfa29df0cc9869d698bba8b.jpeg

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

After spending the day demonstrating at the Bristol model show, I now have finished the Virgin Cross Country loco hauled formation.  All of the mk 2s are now upgrades with chassis that have no fictional solebar, and have had the chassis weathered. 

 

 

It now needs some more work finishing off the Kaydee fitting 

2D230375-3129-4A41-B032-0F9F7B4B7DCA.jpeg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

As mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I have been giving some thought to my next exhibition layout that I will be working on in parallel to Brent over the next few years.

 

Last night I did a quick run through of the stock that would be required to run the potential layout plans that are currently in my head, and with the exception of a couple of DMUs, a few coaches which are currently in the works and a couple more silver bullets & polybulks, I have the stock that will be required.  The problem is the space, the rough design concept I currently have in my head is something along the lines of Bodmin Parkway, with mainline running of HSTs / Class 47 and 7 coaches, plenty of freight and the ability to just run trains (the addition of the preserved line adds further interest, as does the Enterprise service to the lighting plant).   The problem is the size, to pull off what I have in mind I would need 7 or 8 fiddle yard roads in each direction and a scenic section in excess of 30ft, completely dwarfing Brent at 16ft by 8ft with 4+4 fiddleyard roads already filling up my garage.)  So unless there is a group of modellers in the south Gloucestershire area who fancy making a P4 model of a Devon or Cornwall station in 1998, its going to be a long time until I could even think about building such a layout.

 

This has led me to start considering a change of scale

 

At the Bristol show a couple of weekends back while demonstrating on the DEMU stand, I had a 6 coach Virgin Cross Country loco hauled formation + 47817 on the front.  On the other side of the table was a full Gatwick Express mk2 set in N taking up a fraction of the space.  In turn this got me thinking, what about selling up the modern stock & using the proceeds to buy exactly the same stock in the smaller scale, halving the size requirements in the process.   

 

The problem is N gauge track (which just looks horrid), along with N gauge couplings (which look even worse).  The couplings shouldn’t be the end of the world to sort out, but the track required more thought.  I like the idea of 2mm finescale, but it just seems a little bit strange to go to all the trouble improving the look of the track, only to run trains on it which are the wrong scale.   Is there a compromise of 2mm scale flangeway gapes etc but to N’s scale?

 

The other issue is going to be rolling stock, how much more difficult is it to mask and respray in N vs 4mm scale?  The signature HSTs in GWT livery would all need to be respray jobs (if using the more accurate Dapol model), while I am sure a fair amount of the freight would need to be kit built.  

 

Over the summer I am going to be having a play with Templot to work out some options and see if this really is realistic going forwards…

In the mean time once Brent is a little more complete I will be setting up for a 1998 running day!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

As mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I have been giving some thought to my next exhibition layout that I will be working on in parallel to Brent over the next few years.

 

Last night I did a quick run through of the stock that would be required to run the potential layout plans that are currently in my head, and with the exception of a couple of DMUs, a few coaches which are currently in the works and a couple more silver bullets & polybulks, I have the stock that will be required.  The problem is the space, the rough design concept I currently have in my head is something along the lines of Bodmin Parkway, with mainline running of HSTs / Class 47 and 7 coaches, plenty of freight and the ability to just run trains (the addition of the preserved line adds further interest, as does the Enterprise service to the lighting plant).   The problem is the size, to pull off what I have in mind I would need 7 or 8 fiddle yard roads in each direction and a scenic section in excess of 30ft, completely dwarfing Brent at 16ft by 8ft with 4+4 fiddleyard roads already filling up my garage.)  So unless there is a group of modellers in the south Gloucestershire area who fancy making a P4 model of a Devon or Cornwall station in 1998, its going to be a long time until I could even think about building such a layout.

 

This has led me to start considering a change of scale

 

At the Bristol show a couple of weekends back while demonstrating on the DEMU stand, I had a 6 coach Virgin Cross Country loco hauled formation + 47817 on the front.  On the other side of the table was a full Gatwick Express mk2 set in N taking up a fraction of the space.  In turn this got me thinking, what about selling up the modern stock & using the proceeds to buy exactly the same stock in the smaller scale, halving the size requirements in the process.   

 

The problem is N gauge track (which just looks horrid), along with N gauge couplings (which look even worse).  The couplings shouldn’t be the end of the world to sort out, but the track required more thought.  I like the idea of 2mm finescale, but it just seems a little bit strange to go to all the trouble improving the look of the track, only to run trains on it which are the wrong scale.   Is there a compromise of 2mm scale flangeway gapes etc but to N’s scale?

 

The other issue is going to be rolling stock, how much more difficult is it to mask and respray in N vs 4mm scale?  The signature HSTs in GWT livery would all need to be respray jobs (if using the more accurate Dapol model), while I am sure a fair amount of the freight would need to be kit built.  

 

Over the summer I am going to be having a play with Templot to work out some options and see if this really is realistic going forwards…

In the mean time once Brent is a little more complete I will be setting up for a 1998 running day!

Yes there is Rich. I don't know the details but I have seen more than one N gauge layout using code 40 rail and finer clearances. They look very good. I'm sure someone closer to the N gauge world will be along with more information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rich,

 

I expect you have seen this - Iain Rice has a plan for Bodmin Parkway in his book "Mainlines in Modest Spaces" published by Atlantic which is 12'x8'...sadly he doesn't give radii but does say that at that space it is "a strict OO gauge layout"...the author also points out that a little more space would ease things...hope this will help if you decide to stick to 4mm...

 

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 29/05/2019 at 10:36, [email protected] said:

Hi Rich,

 

I expect you have seen this - Iain Rice has a plan for Bodmin Parkway in his book "Mainlines in Modest Spaces" published by Atlantic which is 12'x8'...sadly he doesn't give radii but does say that at that space it is "a strict OO gauge layout"...the author also points out that a little more space would ease things...hope this will help if you decide to stick to 4mm...

 

Jonathan

The problem would still be two fold, the first is the curves, the reason Brent ended up in OO rather than EM or P4 was that I was limited to 3ft6 curves and for P4 they would need to be 4ft radius + the width of the baseboard (which wouldn't fit in the garage).  For this project, space will also be at a premium as it needs to go into storage under Brent + to be able to be put up in the dining room for testing (which only gives about 18ft by 10ft).   The second problem is length, a full HST set is the best part of 3 meters in 4mm scale, ideally I like to have a decent space either side of a train, so by its nature the layout has to be very long .  Think something the size of Phil Eames Calcutta Sidings...   All in all a lot of time and expense to complete.    Now for my steam modelling I can accept the track gauge compromise because I haven't the skills to model steam locomotives in P4, diesels on the other hand are within my skillset so I couldn't compromise on the track.   As I say, the only thing that would convince me otherwise would be a group effort where my main involvement would be supplying stock and buildings (while the layout lived somewhere else between shows)… 

 

 

On 29/05/2019 at 08:56, Mark Forrest said:

The Finetrax N gauge stuff looks quite good, although I don't know much about the details.

https://www.britishfinescale.com/

 

Thanks, will have a closer look. 

I hadn't realised that standard N gauge track was also way out of scale, and that "N" scale bodies on 2mm scale track gives a closer comprise.  I think this would be the way ahead should I go down this route.  But a side by side of both options would be worthwhile, especially with the 9mm gauge option meaning RTR track can be used in the fiddleyard saving a lot of effort. 

 

I think the solution is going to be buying a second hand HST and a couple of mk3s and having a go at spraying it into GWT livery.  Then experiment with some track, if all works well (and I can live with the smaller size of locomotives) take it from there.   If not its back to the drawing board.  I have a rough concept for a "bitsa" layout based around part of either Laira or Long Rock, but while I think the concept would look good and be fun to model, much like Wheal Imogen it would bore me silly running it for a weekend.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

I have been giving some thought to the state of my ‘modern’ fleet (not really sure you can describe models from 20 – 30 years ago as modern, but it’s a lot more modern than 1947!)

 

I haven't made any further progress on my internal debate of 4mm vs 2mm for the next big project.  So for the moment at least I will be continuing to build stock for the proposed layout in 4mm...

 

At the moment I have 3 sets of stock to run on Wheal Imogen, plus stock being pulled together for a longer term project set in the South West in 1998.  The logic was always that over the course of an exhibition I would start in the early 80s and move through to the late 90s.  However in practice experience at the show’s first exhibition highlighted a couple of issues with this plan.  Firstly even with one set of stock, it’s a lot of effort taking the layout to a show, both lugging it around on the day and the servicing / testing in advance of the show.   In practice it looks like 4 or 5 locos is more than adequate to run the layout for a day, and 2 or 3 would be fine.

At present the stock list contains 4 mid 80s locos, 7 late 80s and 3 that cover both.  This includes 6 Class 37s, 6 class 50s, an 08 and a peak. After some though I am considering slimming this down somewhat.  (For comparison the 1990s fleet stands at 15 suitable locos (including 4 37s), although  this is more understandable given that stock is being built up for a larger future project).

 

Present:

Mid 80s Fleet: 08502 Blue, 37235 Blue, 37207 Cornish, 37196 LL grey, 45072 Blue, 50007 GWR, 50037 LLB grey roof (although the latter two are just out of period due to orange cantrail lines)

Late 80s Fleet: 08502 Blue, 37673 RFD, 37412 Large Logo, 37675 Red Stripe, 50007 GWR, 50002 LLB black roof, 50037 LLB grey roof, 50149 RF, 50001 Revised NSE, 50048 early NSE.

 

Proposed: (those in bold are stock I would never part with)

Mid 80s Fleet: 08502 Blue, 37207 Cornish, 37196 LL grey, 45072 Blue, 50xxx Large Logo Blue with no orange cantrail (proposed respray of one of the NSE machines)

Late 80s Fleet: 08502 Blue, 37675 Red Stripe, 50002 LLB black roof, 50149 RF But that this would likely be constrained to just running at home, which gives the added benefit of not needing to build two rakes of CDAs for different periods).

However the focus of the layout would be the 1998 operating period

 

It frees up a number of redundant locos, 50007 is already pending a conversion back to OO where it will join 60081 on track cleaning duties on Brent.  Which leaves 2 redundant class 50s (one in NSE and one the weathered large logo blue 50037), both of which will likely find their way onto ebay at some point in the new year.  Likewise 45072 may be one loco too many.  For the Class 37s it leaves 3 spare locos, 37235, 37412 and 37673. 

Conversely there are a couple of class 37 projects for 1998 for which I need donors.  I am still trying to confirm repaint dates, but I fancy a DRS triple grey 37/6 to run with my DRS blue 37612, 37611 looks the easy option (centre box), though if I can source another set of flush ends one of the lower numbered examples would be more interesting.   37673 would make a good start point (although it would also be good for adding a second Transrail machine as Tre Pol & Pen)… 

Another loco on my wants list is 37403, I need some 37s running on engineers workings and according to my research 403 did a run to Cornwall on Engineers in 98, 37412 would be perfect as a source here. 

I haven’t got a single 90s 37/0, a big omission I think.  There are lots of options here for resprays, with either Dutch or Mainline near the top of the pile.  

Finally there is 37667 in EWS, the fleet already has two Cornish linked 37/6 in EWS (670 and 521), so Meldon is rather redundant.  Further to this is needs backdating from its current 2004 condition (with sandite port / black headcodes).  But on the other hand it is a favourite… I think I am going to hold fire for the moment I think while I think about backdating to 1998 condition….

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • RMweb Gold

I am currently about half way though a major tidy up of the area under Brent, part of this in theory frees up the storage space that I will be able to set up Wheal Imogen under the Brent fiddleyard baseboard.   This finally gives an incentive to get the fiddleyard working & sort out the lighting finally.

 

One of the issues I had with the fiddleyard was that due to the size constraints when I originally built the layout a chunk of the trackplan was omitted and instead replicated using the fiddleyard.  So the traverser had to be used for every runaround move, one thought as part of the filddleyard modifications was to insert an additional 4ft by 1ft8 board which would connect the the yard tracks together and then onto the branch.  All of which is complicated by there being about a 15mm height difference between the branch and yard which will need to be closed in about a 2ft length. 

 

Option one is simpler, adding two points (one of which has the catch points integrated into the point to save space based upon those at Brent.)  The idea scenically is that there would be a cutting through a tree covered hill to attempt to hide the exit off scene (I like the idea of having the bridge in the middle).   Of course this will pose some issues given that I only modelled the bridge on one side...

clay.png.d1e155115cb4243a46c9eb27533f424c.png

 

The issue with option one is that it will still require a shunting move to back out onto the branch to run around.  So option two resolves this by adding a double slip and a headshunt.  I just cant get away from adding the dammed things it seems....  Scenically it would remain the same as option one.

1139505495_WhealImogenv12.png.056dfcfe151b89fd460a07d564088e38.png

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think it’s decided, option 2 is the way to go.  
 

that said there is still a slight issue in that the head shunt will only take a loco.  To shunt a train to split an arrival and shunt slurry tanks or vans for loading ideally the headshunt needs to be able to hold a loco plus a bogie cargowaggon.  This leaves two options: continuing with two lines exiting the board so part of the move is done off scene (at least it would be two parallel lines).      Or a five foot baseboard to provide the extra clearance, in theory there is enough length for it to be set up at home, but access to the fiddleyard would be limited. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
42 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Not much of a headshunt if it will only hold a loco, as I see it, if you extend it into the fiddle yard you're right back where you started.

 

 

I guess it is a bit of an improvement in that the different elements are all tied together a little better, and the exit from layout to fiddleyard will just be a pair of parallel lines as opposed to the current 3 lines at different angles.  
 

possibly a 5ft board will fit, which would mean the headshunt fits a loco and a bogie cargowaggon.  Once I have finished clearing out it’s new home I can do some tests to check the length works as I see it. 
 

The points could all be shifted to the left which would extend the headshunt further, but it comes with the issue that I’m changing the height of the branch over too short length 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Some more thoughts having completed a more detailed inspection of the area under the baseboards.  First up there is a lot of stuff which needs shifting (although I do have a slot at the dump on Apr 11th), and an old layout which needs component recovery.  Length wise it all should be ok, and I think a 5 ft extension would fit within the available space.  Width will just about work thanks to the current board tapering from 2ft to 18 inches, this will mean rebuilding the transverser frame with a narrower width (but that was on the cards anyway as the deck will no longer need to be so wide thanks to the single central exit).   

The layout legs for Brent will make life more difficult as their spacing is not consistent, with one span slightly more than 4ft and another around 3ft6.  It will make it quite a lot harder to remove the layout for an exhibition, but on the other hand it will mean the layout can be left set up and used.  At the end of the day I dont see it going to that many exhibitions in a year, so its not the end of the world.  Right now I just want to have a decent backdrop for photographing my modern stock as I complete projects!

 

So all in all I think the project is viable, so attention will turn to trackwork etc later in the year once I have completed the garage clear out.  Certainly I think the points will need building as soon as I finish those for "Kingsbridge" to maximise the benefit of the learning curve.   

 

In the mean time I am hoping that we get some decent weather over the Easter weekend, as I would quite like to set it up on the patio for a day to do the work on the fiddleyard and to try and to check out the track condition on the core section.  I want to ensure that a year of not so perfect storage hasnt caused any running issues (because if it has I need to look at alternative options...) 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

The garage is now clear of junk, so the next dry weekend I should be able to move things around and get the layout into its new home. 
 

there is one problem however, it is going to be a difficult job getting it into position. 
 

Brents fiddleyard is built on a sub structure containing two spars (formed in 3 sections) with a set of legs added at each joint.   The first two and last span are about 3ft with the  third span 4ft.  Distance between the wall and leg is 23inches.  Where as board 1 (to the right of the post in the below photo)  is 4ft, and 24inches at it widest part tapering down to 18inches or so.

 

So it either needs to slide in frk

 the end, or I need to cut out the leg and move it 12 inches towards the garage door.  
 

the alternative is to forget about the extension and instead try and get the fiddleyard working effectively. Again the issue is space, on both sides of Brent there is a 4ft span into which the layout would fit.  The issue is that on the scenic side (where Wheal Imogen currently lives) the fiddleyard space is only about 4ft.  But it’s in the worst possible place under the widest part of Brent in an area with lots of legs.

 

on the other side the issue is that the wide span again only has a 4ft space which has limited access.   Where as the location in the photo would give 8ft of useful space plus 2ft of limited access to the right (and if the layout had been built the other way round I would have a vast amount of room). 
 

 

A31B12A7-FEAB-445D-BFAF-45F6ADC7FC9B.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I tried to move the layout to its new location today, only to find that it won’t quite slide into place.  I will definitely need to move one of the legs, so it’s now held up until timber has been sourced (and until the next stage of lockdown is lifted and I can get my father round to do the woodwork).  I have found some suitable wood for adding the legs, so it’s a little closer to being ready. 
 

I will then get the new baseboard out of the roof, again this needs modification to reduce the width and add an extra foot of length.  Then the width of the fiddleyard will need to be trimmed down.  
 

I haven’t worked out what I will do with the arch yet, the first option would be having two viewing windows, with a dividing bar in the centre. 
or removing the centre upright and extends the the top across the 2nd board.  The backscene needs removing from the right hand side as well (so more woodwork...) 

the alternative for now would be trying to get the original fiddleyard working properly....


looking at the condition there is only a little minor damage  repair, a few fence posts and the scaring where the signal was removed and moved to Brent.  A new signal will be added to the extension board.

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well tonight was an unmitigated disaster, my plan was to clear some space, before moving the layout outside and sliding it in through a gap that was just wide enough for the layout to fit.  This involved moving the layout through the lifting section of Brent (which it only just fits through).

 

It turned out that there was a lower obstruction that stopped the layout sliding through the gap I had planned.  So it had to be lifted back into the garage.   
 

Through this process the dries fell off (breaking one of the covered  loading areas) and the main covered loading roof broke up.   So now there’s a lot of repairs to make (and the layout is currently sat on its end getting in the way of Brent 

 

to top it all there are a number of areas where the steel rail has rusted (in the infilled track section).  All makes me want to start all

over again!

  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I am certainly going to take some time to think about it, make the modifications to Brent's sub structure to get sufficient clearance to set it up, then have a look at the rust issues.  If I cant sufficiently clean up the rust (which is going to be tricky without damaging the concrete infill,) then more substantial rebuilding will be needed (and starting again reusing the same structures would be sensible.)  At that point I would have to have a very long think as to whether or not to rebuild in OO.  It would also give potential to deal with one of the biggest design errors in the layout in that I put the wide section on the left hand side.  The original logic behind this was that the previous track plan looked a little too similar to another layout, flipping it around was intended to hide any similarity.   The down side was that it couldnt be left set up in my study (As the wide bit dug into the walk space).   Likewise it caused all of these issues fitting in the garage...

 

This said, there was some potential good news.  Looking at the bridge on the right end of the works, while it doesnt have a scenic finish on the backscene side, it does have a full set of girders.  It also looks like it will be a fairly simple job to add a layer of embossed plastic and blend it all together.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Taken at lunch, the current state of the trackE6E9EE3B-0EBF-48FA-88E6-9B0EB3CE5615.jpeg.9ce0f2312c64a20941d29991bfc1cda4.jpeg

 

most of the rust is around the switch rails and vee (I have a feeling I used NS rail elsewhere but reused steel exactoscale bits  for the vee and blades.)  which despite my best efforts cleaning up the flux, has badly rusted.

 

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

Taken at lunch, the current state of the trackE6E9EE3B-0EBF-48FA-88E6-9B0EB3CE5615.jpeg.9ce0f2312c64a20941d29991bfc1cda4.jpeg

 

most of the rust is around the switch rails and vee (I have a feeling I used NS rail elsewhere but reused steel exactoscale bits  for the vee and blades.)  which despite my best efforts cleaning up the flux, has badly rusted.

 

 

I can't see the real thing, and therefore can't really judge how retreievable the situation is.

 

But I can feel in the thread a movement which feels like a current moving inexorably towards Wheal Imogen 2.0

 

-The buildings are dislodged and damaged but recoverable.

- The boards need modification /expansion

- Parts of the track are compromised

- There are still complications with track plan and operation.

- Significant work needs to be done to Brent to get the smaller layout into place

 

On top of this there are now questions arising as to whether it would work better in OO  or P4 (Though any suggestion of converting the stock to OO raises a whole new set of issues and complications...)

 

If further problems arise, the potential easy win from restoring the old layout to use falls away - and  if you feel that you'd still want this layout - but really it should have been done a bit differently , then reusing the elements to build Wheal Imogen 2.0  "and this time I'm getting it right"  might become the more satisfactory approach.

 

But before committing to go down that road, it would be prudent to scheme out Wheal Imogen 2.0 , to be quite sure that that would definitely crack the problem, fit the site, and work well, before taking any decision.

 

Starting again on a new version that doesn't quite hit the spot either might be the worst of all worlds

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...