Chris M

I find I get more invites to shows when I attend medium size exhibitions than I do at large exhibitions. You can go to the NEC and get no invites at all and then somewhere like Exeter and get a couple - well that's what happened to me. Not getting invited to shows just means that the exhibition managers who could use a layout like yours weren't at the show you were at. Its fair to say that large layouts will be harder to accommodate at many shows. It can also be that exhibition managers have a glut of certain types of layout and can't invite any more of that type because they have a waiting list. So its nice to get invites but not getting invites doesn't necessarily mean that a layout isn't worthy of being invited to shows or that the builder hasn't made it as a railway modeller.

It's great when an exhibition manager sees your your layout and invites you to his exhibition. It's also great when a magazine asks you for an article. You can of course have made it without either of these things but they kind of indicate you have done some work which is of interest to others .

That's an excellent piece of N gauge modelling. I hope this slight diversion is ok bearing in mind the discussion about baseboards. We used styrofoam boards with a thin ply surround on our G scale club layout. Because of the size of the boards we had to join the styrofoam together and so used another strip of ply at the joint. We put long screws into the foam at the joints and glued it all together with pva adhesive. The ply around the edge cages the styrofoam in and protects it from knocks. A few years and a number of exhibitions later the boards are still rigid and in one piece; they have caused no problems. Ours is probably the only layout where the track weighs more than the baseboard it lies on! Being G scale we use the rail joiners to hold the baseboards together but don't try this in N! Also fitting under track point motors wouldn't be straightforward.

It is of course much easier to fit an N gauge circular layout into a house than it is an 00 or larger scale layout. When layouts are described as oval I think that is fine but the “straight” part doesn’t need to be perfectly straight. The curves can be quite generous on the visible section and transition into something quite sharp once in the tunnel. This layout is 7ft by 3ft 2in so would fit in most spare rooms.

The specialist was all set to do a biopsy based on my PSA score but when I told him I had been on a 20 mile ride the day before the test he cancelled the biopsy and arranged for another PSA test. Second test after no cycling was only marginally lower.

I have been told that us chaps have a design fault and every one of us will get prostate cancer if we live long enough. Its worth having a PSA test as it is a quick and easy check. I got an unwelcome score even though I don't have any symptons other than the occasional need to pee urgently which I thought was just due to age. One thing they didn't tell me - you mustn't ride a bike for 48 hours before a PSA test because it can screw up the results. There are other things you shouldn't do before the test which are more obvious.

If I can build one then they were buildable. In terms of what was available RTR at the time, MTK kits could be made into reasonable models. Just think of some of the RTR models that we were using. The Tri-ang class 37, the Trix Warship etc. When it came out the Lima Western was an amazingly good model. Things have changed a little since then.

My MTK class 22 which gave plenty of good service. I sold it with all my other 00 stock back in the 1990s. I wonder if it still exists somewhere? MTK kits were a quirky but very useful source of loco types that weren’t available in rtr form. You always got a great sense of achievement from completing one.

Must say I agree with the above. I have paid my money towards the King but need to see this progress before I'm prepared to commit to funding the 63xx project. It has to be said that s 63xx would be a more useful loco but the king needs to be in my possession before I would invest in another DJM crowdfunding project. I'm still annoyed with the many people who promised they would crowdfund the king project but didn't pay up when asked. That certainly isn't Dave's fault.

When I spoke to Dave at Stafford exhibition he was sure the King project would go ahead. He has put a lot of time into it.

I have seen photos of a brake at each end on freights running between Newton Abbot and Brixham . The train would need to change direction at Churston.

For no good reason here are a couple of my wagons at Worlds End station. Don't know why they are on the branch as there are no facilities for tank wagons at the terminus.

Sounds like you won't gain a lot from DCC but you might lose a bit drawing trains forward in the storage sidings. Megapoints do a mimic that works for all types of control. It may be worth looking into.

I mostly agree with Ron especially about personal preference. Although my dc layout is small I tend to have more than a couple of locos in action even though I only have two controllers. The wiring around the back allows point route setting through the junction with the push of one button using good old fashioned diodes.

One of our club layouts uses the MERG cbus. It is troublesome and the likelyhood is that it will be removed and replaced with something less flaky. I can see it has some fantastic features but older Farish locos cause the points to change as they go round. I'm told the MERG suggested solution is to fit a better capacitor into every loco. This won't happen as we are not prepared to tell club members they must modify their stock. In other words the suggestion is that your locos aren't good enough for our point control system. At the moment the problem is still being worked on but I'm sorry to say most of us are totally fed up with it.

Why does it have to be seen a challenger? There are many ways of controlling trains and we are all entitled to use what works for us without being told we we are not using the correct method or that our layout is no more than "a circle of track on the carpet". Our choice should be respected by others. I choose dc because it suits my needs best. I came to this conclusion after investigation and carrying out a business analysis of what I needed and what each method of control provides. The person who helps run my layouts at exhibitions and has two dcc layouts at home has said that he thinks dc is the best for my layouts; from his use of dcc he believes that my layouts would be harder to operate at exhibitions if they were dcc. I think dcc is best for what he wants at home and so we are both happy that we have made different but correct choices. I converted one 00 loco to BPRC just out of interest and am very pleased with it. I might convert another loco sometime in the future or I might not as I don't really run 00 gauge. It certainly is viable in certain circumstances and has advantages that could be important to some people. There could be an interesting future though. We know the automotive industry is investing billions in improving battery technology and word is that they are nearly there. Somewhere around 2021/3 we should have a reasonably priced electric car which can run 400 miles and then fully recharge in about ten minutes. Some years after this you can be sure the technology will have worked its way into all batteries which may or may not make BPRC more mainstream. It sounds like the OP should go for dcc primarily because his layout builder is most familiar with dcc and may struggle with anything else but he should be aware that there are other choices which may suit his needs.

So I'm not allowed to have a different opinion to you. I respect others views and would ask for the same courtesy. I don't like the suggestion that my layouts are nothing more than a circle of track on a carpet. In fact one of them is end to end and not a circle at all

Batteries obviously take up a lot of space. A receiver costs £40 (this is an 18 volt 3 amp spec) and batteries cost £15 to £20. It is well worth it for the wonderful running that you get when the loco has its own power source on board. Absolutely no chance of stallling on points no matter how slow you go and zero problems due to dirty track or dirty wheels. Will run anywhere whether there is a power supply or not. No need for a power bus or to worry about conductivity of fishplates. If it was adopted by the likes of Bachmann or Hornby the costs would come down and battery housing would be incorporated into the chassis design. There are many cheap,small battery radio control cars around so the technology is there for OO but probably not for N. The main manufacturers won’t go in this direction because they kind of like being able to sell all the expensive controllers etc required for dcc.

This layout is the benchmark for compact N gauge layouts. Always impressed when with the thought that went into the whole layout in order to achieve the required effect. It may well be an inspiration for my next layout. If so I will happily declare where the ideas came from.

I just don’t see that dcc provides a near prototypical running experience any more than dc and yes I have tried both. There is no right or wrong, just what works for you. On my garden railway and one OO loco I have installed battery powered radio control and I rate this as absolutely brilliant. No wires at all for track, no track cleaning and no stalling on points; you really are driving the loco and not the track. I really think this is by far the best system but as yet it is not suitable for N. It is great for older 00 diesels where there is plenty of room in the body for batteries. It’s a shame that the likes of Bachmann and Hornby have no interest in BPRC because I think it would be a great step forwards. I just use NIMH batteries and they run for a long time between charges. The only down side I have found is that locos don’t stop when they come off the track...

The best thing is to try both, think about what is important to you and speak with the builder. Although you can see I prefer dc it really is horses for courses. It’s what you want that is best for you.

I also have sound on my dc layout. I have edited some sound files to suit my layout and trigger them to a Bluetooth speaker from my phone. I prefer this because I get the whole train passing sound and I get a much richer sound than possible from a speaker in an N gauge loco. If I use my big Bluetooth speaker I can make the floor vibrate as the trains pass but for some reason the wife doesn’t appear to be keen on me doing this. Haven’t asked the neighbours what they think!

My experience of MERG point control at the club has been disastrous. Although being a relatively cheap system it has cost a lot more than traditional push button and solenoid control. The plastic servo mounts are flimsy. Older Farish locos cause the points to change all by themselves. So far the only cure found is to install a new capacitor in every offending loco. This ain’t going to happen. Unless a cure is found in the next few months the MERG system will be stripped out. Yes the number of wires is greatly reduced compared to the traditional way but it is just too flaky.

When I restarted building model railways in 2013 I looked carefully into both systems and chose dc because it suits my needs better. For me the best thing about dc is that when you change a point you automatically have control of the loco on the selected track; this feature alone makes dc the choice for me. I model in N gauge but if I was doing O gauge my choice may have been different. I do hope my layouts are seen as being sort of realistic! Some say you can’t double head with dc but I have no problem. Even banking is possible.

50 049 coming soon as limited edition through class 50 fund