Robin2

That's fair enough, even if disappointing news. I was sure that your earlier Reply "It's not whether it's satisfactory or not" did not really mean that you did not care for your customers Another idea that might fill the gap ... If i hover my mouse over the text "Posted xxxx" it shows the date and time of the Post. Maybe it would be possible to make that appear without the need to hover and then I could refer, for example, to @AY Mod's Reply at 20:02 No - that won't work with different time zones - <expletive deleted> ...R

Sorry, I missed this when I posted my previous Reply. I understand that the numbers will change if a Reply is moved but in my experience that does not happen very often and I (am I the only one?) like the convenience of being able to refer to (eg) Reply #4 for things which don't justify cluttering the Thread with repetitious text. If it is just a matter of ticking a box to turn the reply numbering feature on perhaps you would be kind enough to give us the option of using the numbers. ...R

Thanks this is the link to the Reply with the instructions I will be interested to know if other people find that a satisfactory substitute for a visible number. ...R

I can't see a "share this post" icon. However I don't think a link would be as convenient as the Reply number because you have to click the link - you can't just scroll up the page. ...R

That's not the sort of thing I want - not a big number like 3782769 but a small number - this happens to be Reply #4 in this Thread. And the numbers need to be visible without hovering or equivalent for people to be able to see them easily when scrolling up or down through a Thread. If you are not familiar with the sort of thing I have in mind have a look at any Thread in the Arduino Forum ...R

At the moment there is no convenient way (at least I can't see it) to refer to a specific Reply within a Thread. It would be a great help if the number of each Reply could be shown so that one could refer to a comment in an earlier Reply with something like "as XXX said in Reply#NN ..." I thought that the Reply number used to be shown in this Forum - but my recollection may be faulty. ...R

Then from an operational point of view they are no different from the ideas I proposed earlier for a card with a barcode that could be attached to a cassette or setting a DIP switch to a code. And soldering wires to 20 or 30 D connectors would be a real PITA. ...R

If a train is only intended to have one RFID tag then perhaps the software could be programmed to ignore any others that it detects in the same train. ...R

That's why I had two smileys ...R

That's the same as your operator entering the correct code when loading a train onto a cassette. Be the boss - impose discipline! If a particular vehicle always represented a specific train you could put a barcode or an RFID tag on it. But if that is not always the case then IMHO human brain power will be essential. Maybe you could make a card with a barcode that also has a small magnet and a piece of iron in one of the train vehicles so when a train comes out of service the card can be taken off the cassette and attached to the train. Vice versa when the train is put in service. ...R

That makes me wonder if it would be practical for the person putting the train into the cassette to do something at the same time which would identify the train. Various "somethings" come to mind including setting a DIP switch (or similar) with a code that could be read by an Arduino (or similar) when the cassette is dropped into place. Another "something" might be a card with a barcode that could be read when the cassette is dropped into place. Just my few cents. It's an interesting problem. ...R

I know little more about JMRI other than the name. However I have done a bit of PC and Arduino programming so the concepts you describe are understandable. It seems to me some of your wishes are mutually exclusive - for example if you can't add some tell-tale to the stock (9) how could any system tell the difference between a pair of MUs operating together and later operating separately (7). The DCC codes for the motive power units will (presumably) be unique and might be a useful indicator were it not for your (6). Other than that I suspect you could use the DCC code without conflicting with your (2). While you have listed a lot of constraints that you want to apply you have not described how the trains will be managed. In other words, at what point in the system will a headcode be allocated, by whom and to what? If this is to be a "standby" system for when operators are having a break then perhaps you should greatly simplify the system - for example by associating a headcode with a train in a particular place in the fiddle yard. ...R

For me batteries save the hassle of cleaning track and wheels and, indeed, dirty track (e.g. matt paint) gives much better traction. Not to mention the avoidance of frog wiring. But each to his own. ...R

There won't be many machine tools that can work to that level of precision. ...R

Thanks for that, but I have no immediate need of them. ...R

Thanks. The fixed 5v version would meet my need and it is significantly smaller than what I have. But it also seems a lot more expensive. I wonder if any UK supplier stocks them? I will keep it in mind. For the moment I need a battery trailer anyway and it has been easy to use the step-up module as the chassis for the trailer with a 3D printed frame and a couple of Peco wagon wheels glued on. I am working on the basis that nobody looks at the technology of the chassis ...R

Yes there is. The official definition of an inch is 25.4 millimetres (from my US physics text book) ...R

Thanks for that. The ones I have are similar to these (on Amazon) although the inductors on mine have 330 printed on them. I suspect the device you have is similar but with fixed resistors. My Kato chassis which was quite sluggish on 3.7v works very well at 4.5v ...R

This seems to have come out of the blue. What "whole caboodle" are you referring to? ...R

I'm curious to know what size they are. The ones I got recently are based on MT3608 chips and as delivered they measure 37x17x6mm. The ends can be sawed off to reduce the length to 30mm but the thickness is mainly determined by the inductor so can't be reduced. They are cheap and seem to work very well with a multi-turn pot to set the voltage, but something considerably smaller would be nice. ...R

Just wondering what are you using for the voltage step-up? ...R

My current fixation is with freelance 009 models built on Kato chassis and I am using a separate wagon to carry the battery and the step-up module. The battery wagon can be a tender on a steam loco. For a small tank loco or small diesel the wagon is an extra. But the whole of a model railway is make-believe so the extra wagon doesn't really matter. And the more realistic performance (and track simplicity) with BPRC is what attracts me to it. I'm making my loco bodies with card using my Silhouette Portrait cutter. ...R

When I converted an N Gauge loco to BPRC I made a very small switch with brass tube - one piece that can fit inside the other. Cut the large piece in two and connect one side to the battery and one side to everything else. The switch is "made" when you insert the inner tube (or rod, if you prefer) through the two parts. As well as the small size it requires no force to switch on or of. ...R

My adult daughter tells me there is a lot of very gory animation under the title of Peppa Pig. However I will leave it to people who are interested in creating animations to pursue their rights on the matter for themselves. ...R

Part of the problem is that YouTube was not fined - they made a voluntary settlement and in the course of that seem to have volunteered to do more than might be legally required. The fine is not levied because of the way content is labelled. The offense (US spelling) is collecting personal data from kids - it won't matter how the video was labelled. And it would be interesting to be able to afford the legal challenge about whether it is YouTube who is collecting the data or the maker of the video. I suspect in most cases the collected data never gets near the video creator - which is why I suspect YouTube of passing the buck and expecting the creators to solve a problem that is really a YouTube problem. Apart from that this seems to be a sensible summary of the situation. ...R