Dungrange

I've no idea, but if there is an issue, I'd assume that it would be the back-to-back measurement of BEBO stock through your S Gauge turnouts. That is, if BEMO products have a narrower track gauge, then presumably the back-to-back distance will also be less, in which case you may have an issue. However, since I have no knowledge of the products you mention, I can't say whether this would definitely be a problem.

Interesting, but the Government website states You must tell the customer they can cancel their order up to 14 days after their order is delivered. They don’t need to give a reason for cancelling. If you don’t tell the customer about their right to cancel, they can cancel at any time in the next 12 months. If you tell them about the right to cancel during these 12 months, they have 14 days to cancel from when you told them. https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses However, I agree that if you want to return them, you need to do so promptly.

I think that is correct. However, it depends on how buyers respond. Some will decide to send them back, but others may just be disappointed, but keep them anyway. The question is what proportion of buyers will send them back and what proportion will keep them? A question, what happens if a buyer has already weathered these and run them round their layout for a month or so before they become aware that they are too short? Can they return them for a refund? I think the answer to that is no. They can return them under distance selling regulations within a short period of time (14 days?) but once they've weathered or otherwise modified them, I think they would be deemed to have accepted the wagons. The question is therefore how long will it take people to realise that there is a problem?

You may be right, but I think when these first came into stock, there was at least 400 of each of the nine livery variants being sold. That therefore suggests a production run of perhaps 4,000 units (~444 in each livery). However, looking at the stock levels on footplate.co.uk just now, reveals that they only have a total of 279 wagons left (between 19 and 40 of each variant). That would therefore imply that they have maybe already sold over 90% of the production run at £50 per wagon. The question is therefore how many wagons will be returned to them? Some purchasers will send them back, but perhaps there are still a significant number of new owners who are blissfully unaware of the size discrepancy, who will therefore keep their models. There are many modellers who don't read RMweb or even magazine reviews. Unfortunately, Flangeway will have been looking to recover the tooling costs over several production runs (by for example offering further livery variations and different bogies), so whilst there is a chance that they can shift all of this production run without dumping them on a 'box shifter', I'd assume that the demand for further production runs has probably largely evaporated.

I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as @Crosland, but where I have noted switches with both an AC and DC current rating, the DC current rating seems to be a little over half the AC rating. That is, a switch rated at 10A 125VAC may be rated at something like 6A 24V DC. The problem is I can't find a dual rated datasheet to confirm, because there aren't that many. Of course, what I'm not sure about is whether since DCC uses a form of alternating current (even although it's not a sine wave) whether that makes it okay to just use the AC current ratings. I guess the main point that @Crosland makes though is that if switches are incorporated in a DCC setup for fault finding, then if they are not being switched when current is flowing, then the rating is less important. It's when you're going to be throwing a switch while current is flowing that determines the need for a higher current rating.

But how many people actually care? There is probably a large section of the market who don't really care too much about the accuracy of the models that run on their train set. They just buy and run what they like. Although the model is too short, that doesn't mean that it doesn't look like a nice model and would be acceptable to some. The problem is of course the price. For £50 I expect an accurately scaled wagon, whereas those who are content with more compromised models tend to want to pay 'Railroad' prices. The problem with Flangeway putting a note on the website, is that it may put many prospective purchasers off buying these. Given that correcting the issue will cost the company a lot of money, it probably makes sense for Flangeway to try to recover as much money as possible from this production run to limit their losses. Yes, some of those on here will return the models and ask for a refund, but there is a saying 'ignorance is bliss' and for all those who are unaware of an issue with the length, they'll hopefully be happy with their purchase. It does of course mean that Flangeway should halt the production of any newer variants until they have the basic dimensions correct, as there must be a limited market for a compromised wagon at a high price point.

It depends on the 'error'. I agree that it looks as though the whole model is compressed, so it's perhaps more likely to be a scaling error rather than a measurement error (although it could be both). It looks like the length of the model is around 92% of the length that it should be. What I can't tell from the photographs that have been posted in this thread is whether the width of the wagon has been similarly compressed. If it's an overall scaling error then I'd expect the width to also be under scale. @Foden's earlier photograph of the wagons with decks touching does seem to imply that the wagon may be too narrow as well (assuming the Cambrian kit is correct), but the error doesn't look to be as much as 3 mm (ie the width of the Flangeway model looks to be more that 92% of the correct size). That would therefore imply it's possibly a combination of scaling and measurement errors (ie one or more measurement errors with regards length and an overall scaling error that affects both the length, width and possibly ride height). Perhaps any global scaling error is simply not accounting for material shrinkage as @Bearwood West Yardhas indicated - that's not something that I knew about. Ultimately, as Andy York has said, we need to wait for Flangeway to investigate what went wrong. It's certainly a very disappointing outcome for a wagon that many of us were looking forward to and the cost to Flangeway of trying to correct this will likely be significant. My understanding is that they need the profits from each model they've commissioned to finance the next model, so this will likely put a hole in their future plans (whatever they were).

The EM1 is only 0.5W - https://www.dckits-devideos.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=223_239&product_id=431 The EM2 is 1W - https://www.dckits-devideos.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=223_239&product_id=433 I'm not sure about the EM3, which I think is for 0 Gauge, but doesn't seem to be on the DC Kits website.

... so you can fit an extra wagon in the fiddle yard ! Unfortunately, I suspect that it's simply an error. Looking at @Foden's photographs, it looks like most of the missing length is actually in the section between the ends of the underframe trusses and the buffers, which means that it's not even a 1:83 scale wagon. The length of the underframe trusses look similar between the Cambrian and Flangeway models.

I'm very disappointed by this news, as I've been looking forward to these since they were first announced several years ago. Looking at the photograph above with the Flangeway model sitting adjacent to a Cambrian kit, it looks as though the missing length is spread throughout the length of the wagon, which means that the overall proportions look okay - it's just the model seems to be to a scale of something like 1:83 rather than 1:76. I was hoping to buy several of the more recent models with ASF bogies and load them up with track panels, but if they are too short to accommodate scale length panels, then I may have to reconsider my purchase plans.

There is a thread about Hunt Couplings on here I think the question is whether or not you are looking for an automatic uncoupler (like Kadee) or a fixed coupling (like Hunt). The Hunt couplings are no use if you want to shunt your stock. However, if you run fixed rakes, then I understand they are worth looking at. I've still to try them out.

Bachmann couplings are not operated by magnets: they are of the tension lock variety as used by most ready-to-run manufacturers. Uncoupling works by physically pushing the part of the coupling that hangs down upwards to disengage the hooks. Hornby produce one - https://www.hattons.co.uk/6950/hornby_r617_uncoupling_ramp/stockdetail.aspx, but you can also make your own arrangement either by the installation of flexible clear Plasticard strips or make a tool yourself - https://www.railwaymodellers.com/uncoupler-tool-for-tension-lock-couplings/

There are two locations on that plan, where you appear to have used flexitrack that results in you inadvertently reducing the spacing of the tracks below standard track centres. That therefore means if you attempt to run two trains in opposite directions trains, they will hit each other. I've marked the problem areas on the figure below.

I think you need to consider more than just your gradients. In the above section, your inner curve (ST-12) is shown as being out in the open, yet the next track (ST-15) is in tunnel. This won't work, as there is not enough space between the two lines to build a rock face or retaining wall without either restricting the end through of a locomotive on the inner track, or the central overhang of a coach on the outer track. Either all three tracks need to be in tunnel, or you need a greater distance between adjacent tracks if you want to have the arrangement you've shown (ie one track in cutting and a parallel track in tunnel). Also, I note that ST-12 is defined as first radius. In 00, many modern locomotives are not designed to go around first radius curves in 00, but I'm not sure if this is a similar problem with N gauge, since I don't model in N gauge.

Personally, I'd avoid the gradient and sink the canal into the baseboard - ie lower the canal rather than raise the track.

You'll need to be more specific about the type of uncoupler that you plan to use. If it's Kadee, then they have a standard between the sleeper uncoupler that may be ideal for a fiddle yard - https://www.hattons.co.uk/78977/kadee_321kadee_permanent_magnet_delayed_uncoupler_code_100_/stockdetail.aspx However, if you don't want them to be seen, then you can mount them under the track but they aren't so easy as a retrofit - https://www.hattons.co.uk/78975/kadee_308kadee_under_the_track_uncoupler/stockdetail.aspx Alternatively, there is an electromagnet. Again, not so easy to retro-fit. https://www.hattons.co.uk/78976/kadee_309kadee_under_the_ties_electric_uncoupler/stockdetail.aspx The alternative is to use other non proprietary magnets and experiment with what you require to achieve reliable operation. That will give you an indication of what you need in terms of size and magnet strength.

The Cambrian kits will always be a cheaper option, but I've never been able to build a wagon that size that's square. Ultimately, I've wanted someone to make these ready-to-run for quite some time, so although I agree that I'd have preferred them to be priced closer to £40, I'll still be purchasing some once the more modern bogie variant becomes available. I just hope that the price doesn't rise too much further in the interim.

How much do you want to pay? The Hattons FEA Track panel carrier is £50, which is a wagon with similar proportions - https://www.hattons.co.uk/469461/hattons_originals_h4_feae_005a_fea_e_intermodal_wagon_641025_in_freightliner_green_with_track_panel_carriers/stockdetail.aspx A Bachmann BDA (which is a bit shorter) now has a recommended retail price of £44.99 - https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/br-bda-bogie-bolster-br-bauxite-(tops)-[w]/38-154 I agree that it seems a lot of money compared to a decade ago, but that seems to be the going rate these days.

Great day (my birthday) - but surely we can't be expecting them in 1996!!

It says 'Taken in June 1975'

14th February 2021

It could be, but the website specifically says Accurascale and refers to them as 00. They don't seem to stock the Revolution N gauge ones or anything by Revolution for that matter. https://www.oliviastrains.com/trains/mt/accurascale-wagons-oo-gauge/accurascale-nuclear-flask/acc2400-kua-nuclear-flask-carrier-twin-pack/

I got an e-mail today to say they are in stock.

I think you have the feed locations sorted. I think my concern would be the track layout, as the space between the bottom left point and the edge of the board only looks to be big enough for a small locomotive (ie a tank locomotive or diesel shunter) on its own. It's certainly not large enough to allow for the transfer for stock between the run round loop and the sidings. Regarding the sidings, I think I'd prefer longer sidings and a shorter head-shunt to make the transfer of wagons between the sidings a bit more challenging.

I think they all have retention toilets now, but I understand that they didn't when they were first built. An article from the Herald dated October 2015 indicates that a programme to fit retention toilets to the Scotrail fleet had just commenced in 2015 and that all units would have Control Emission Toilets by 2017. I'm assuming that target was achieved. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13872133.no-dumping-first-of-scotrail-trains-refurbished-with-non-discharging-toilets-will-rejoin-the-fleet-this-weekend/ I guess if you're worried about the smell, you just need to hope that Charlie gives us a CV to lock the door to the toilet so that it's always out of use! Of course it would be a shame if his efforts to provide a working toilet were wasted!!!