Dungrange

https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/Digital/RailCom/Lenz-15120/gb/modell_62740.html Quotes the size as (LxWxH): 47.5 x 65 x 12 mm but I can't say whether or not that is correct.

What would be the most appropriate readily available load for the KFA in the early 21st Century? I'm assuming that the Military Land Rover Defender (https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/collections/1-76/products/land-rover-defender-military-76def003) is the only thing that is suitable from the Oxford Diecast range for a post 2000 layout.

There is software that can help with design such as Anyrail (https://www.anyrail.com/en/download), but that only helps with seeing whether the track that you are looking at will work as you envisage. The staring point is the idea, and that has to come from you. What style of layout do you want? What era? what type of stock do you want to run? Does it need to include shunting? Are you looking for a place to display locomotives (for which a depot layout may be appropriate)? Is your interest in passenger or freight trains? Do you need a station, or would you prefer an industrial backdrop? By all means contact a layout builder, but ultimately, they'll ask you what you want. That's what they will build. Once you have an outline idea, post it here and you'll no doubt get comments with regards how it could possibly be improved.

Firstly Legomanbiffo doesn't produce sound decoders - he simply add sound projects to ESU loksound decoders. They are therefore possibly both ESU Loksound v4 decoders unless the Class 37 is newer, in which case it may be a v5. Looking at the v4 manual on the ESU website it does say to write the value 8 to CV8 to reset. However, if you now have both locos on address 3, then it would seem that they have reset. When you are trying to write a new address, are you doing this 'on the main' or on a programming track? If attempting to write 'on the main' is there only one locomotive on the track while you're attempting to write the address? 37 is most likely a short address, but 147 will be along address. Have you read the value of CV 29 to ascertain that the values are different? http://www.2mm.org.uk/articles/cv29 calculator.htm is a useful calculator to determine whether CV 29 is set correctly. There is also a long address calculator, so you could always for the locomotive that you want to be 147, leave CV 29 such that it refers to the short address (in CV 1), code CV 17 and CV 18 directly (192 and 147 respectively) and then change CV 29 such that it reads the long address. As per the post above, you'd have been better posting in the DCC section (https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/21-power-control-dcc/) which is where all the techy people hang out.

Obviously you get less money if you want to sell as one lot, as whoever you sell to needs to make a profit from the time they spend dealing with the idiots that 'do your head in' when they sell the stock on. There is therefore a simple choice between whether you are looking for a hassle free sale (accepting that you won't get as much money) or you take on all the hassles of selling 2000 items individually, but you probably make more money. The difference in the financial return on these two options is the payment for the hassle. You could always try selling some of the items by e-bay and then when you get fed up, pass the rest to a retailer to sell as second hand.

Great to hear that you have the solution.

I'm assuming that the lights are LEDs, in which case they should only be drawing a current of 20 - 30 mA each. I'd have thought that it was more likely to be caused by interference rather than the lights drawing too much current. However, I note that the accessory output of the COMBI is 16/18V AC, whereas the power supply that is sold for the Just plug modules is 24V DC (See https://woodlandscenics.woodlandscenics.com/show/item/JP-PS). I don't know if this is part of your problem.

I had actually wondered if this was an advantage - ie if all baseboards have a male connection on each end, then there is less likelihood of a baseboard being laid on its end and damaging the track that crosses the baseboard join. However, it looks like the consensus is to mount the two males on one baseboard and the two females on the other, so that's what I'll do. I know that it technically doesn't matter, but it's always good to have others opinions.

Scott - welcome to RMWeb. As the person who started this thread I think I've concluded that the site doesn't see much use as a wagon maintenance location any more, but that doesn't mean that I've entirely given up on a wagon repair works as a rail connected industry. The layout I'm building (albeit the baseboards aren't finished yet let alone the track laying) has space for something connected to my up line which I think can comprise about four sidings (two in the open and two in a large shed) with a separate head shunt and something like Earnock sidings was an idea for that space, although I'm now tending towards a distribution warehouse for van or steel traffic. However, I'm still interested in knowing more about the site as general interest and because a wagon repair works presents the opportunity to operate a larger variety of wagons. The location title 'Hamilton GBRf' implies that the site is now exclusively for GBRf use, so I'm guessing that the maintenance of the Royal Scotsman coaches is potentially all that is done here now. Looking at the Realtime Trains link, it appears that there is a path for what I assume is a light engine movement from Mossend to Earnock sidings / Hamilton GBRf followed by what I assume is an empty coaching stock movement on towards Edinburgh, with reverse paths for returning the coaching stock to Hamilton and then running light engine back to Mossend. It's interesting that a local shunter now works the site - presumably that it more efficient for shunting the coaching stock than the small tractor type thing that was used in the past, which is possibly a reflection of increased frequency of movement. It at least gives me an excuse to have a shunter for my own facility (even although I'll probably be using a Heljan 07) rather than whatever type that is.

I agree with all of the points above, you seem to have an awful lot of track for such a small space and in my opinion, not a lot of operational interest because of the need for very short trains. It's not a layout that I envisage you having for a long time. However, I appreciate that you are space constrained and something is better than nothing. I'd probably treat this a layout on which you are experimenting to gain some skills for a larger layout in the future. Ballast - I'd use the finest grade you can find. What's sold as 00 is usually more suited to 0 gauge and what is sold as N gauge is usually more appropriate for 00. It may also be described as 'Fine'. Colour is up to you, but should be influenced by where your layout is set, as the ballast would be the colour of the stone from local quarries. Point motors - I probably wouldn't bother, unless you are using this simply to learn how to fit point motors or to try different types before deciding what to buy in advance of building a bigger layout. Choice of unit depends on your budget and how much space you have available below the baseboard top (eg Tortoise motors are quite big). You would normally decide on the motors that you intend to use before laying the track to make the necessary holes through the baseboard. Retrofitting is not so easy. Signals - given that I envisage you'll be operating 'one engine in steam' (ie only one locomotive on the layout at a time), you wouldn't need any. Movements could all be controlled by hand signals. I'd envisage that there would be another station down the line (ie where your fiddle yard is) and that would be the last block post on your single track line. The driver in possession of the token from that box would then be able to do whatever you want on your layout without bothering the signalman (ie all points would be operated via a local ground frame, which would be released by the token). Since the layout isn't particularly prototypical (for example it doesn't have any trap points), it would be difficult to signal properly. However, if you must have signals, I'd place a starter on the end of your platform for departing trains and a home signal for arriving trains just at the entrance from your fiddle yard. However, in reality it should be far enough to the left that is should be off the layout. If you were doing this then you could add a signal box, probably near the entry to the layout. Choice of supplier depends on whether your looking for semaphore or colour light signals and whether you want them to operate or not as well as your budget. Uncoupling - I'm assuming that you are using tension lock couplings. The problem with the Hornby uncouplers that fit between the rails is that they need to be fitted in the middle of a straight (R600) and because your sidings at the front of the layout are so short (ie only able to hold one wagon), you'll probably find that where you place the uncoupler will allow you to uncouple a wagon, but you wont be able to couple up again. You're probably better fabricating a tool from plastikard or brass that comprises a small flat section to fit under the tails of the tension lock couplings and a handle to hold it. The alternative is something like a bent paperclip - See https://www.railwaymodellers.com/uncoupler-tool-for-tension-lock-couplings/ You could of course also choose a different type of coupling such as Kadee and using electromagnets but whether it's worth converting your stock depends on your budget and the stock that you have (both with regards quantity and age - ie does it have NEM pockets or is it older stock?). Hope some of that helps.

Okay, I have some of Tim Horn's laser cut baseboards, which I've assembled and it's now time to fix the steel pattern makers alignment dowels. There will be two dowel pairs at each baseboard join comprising a male and female. I'm wondering whether people normally mount the two female dowels on one board and two male dowels on the next board or whether it would be better to fit a male and a female dowel on each board (eg all of the male pins on the dowels at the front of the layout point to the left and all of the male pins on the dowels at the rear of the layout point to the right). Does it matter? If so, why?

That's not something that I'd have thought of. The main issue is the width of the doors. Looking at the pictures of the sets in which these doors are used, the doors seem to be eight studs wide which would make them 64 mm wide, whereas the door opening in the Wills kit is just 52 mm. However, if I'm unsuccessful with the other ideas, then it's possibly a workable solution as it would be possible to set them back behind the inside wall. I'm just not sure how it would look.

That's a great video and they do work, but I note the issue was that the doors couldn't be left in the open position, which would be important. The weights were necessary to stop the doors from curling up, but there would also need to be some form of friction stop, to keep the weights up and the door open. It certainly works closer to how I thought real doors work. I think this picture shows the solution that I am beginning to favour. I didn't realise that some real doors lie flat at an angle (I had thought they were all rolled up). Measuring the Wills kit, I think I have about 38 mm between the top of the door opening and the underside of the roof. The larger the radius between the vertical and the horizontal (or slightly sloping) sections, the less flexible the door would need to be. Unfortunately the doors in the kit are 1 mm thick, with raised detail that about another 0.25 mm which means it's much too rigid to do anything but a straight vertical lift (which there is not the headroom for). I guess what I'm unsure of at the moment is how to form that curved guide rail.

That looks suitable and prompts a couple of questions. Do you know what thickness of plastikard you used? Slaters seem to have a sheet (0436) described as '4mm Scale Corrugations White 0.015" thick', but a lot of other embossed sheets seem to be at least 0.5 mm / 20 thou. The thinner sheets all being plain. If 15 thou thickness would work, I may take a trip to my local model shop, since they usually stock Slater's products. Also, was the brass angle glued to the bottom just to provide weight or was the lifting mechanism connected to this. I perhaps should have said I'd like two doors (a bit like @HillsideDepot's photograph above) so a lifting mechanism that involved lifting the door from the bottom wouldn't be ideal, unless both doors were to lift at the same time, which is perhaps not as realistic as being able to open / close the doors independently.

Thanks guys, I'd have envisaged paper being a bit flimsy, but I note that Evergreen produce five thou sheets of styrene, which is probably about the thickness of two sheets of paper and may be a bit more robust (although arguably less flexible). I hadn't thought of sellotape to hold pieces of plasticard together, although I suspect that the tape may lose its stickiness over time. Was that a problem? I certainly don't have any issues with a manual approach, but the issue is how to hold the doors in a raised position which isn't twice the height of the door (since the Wills kits wouldn't provide the headroom. Interestingly I've found a video of the Proses H0/00 Engine House with working motorised doors, which is nice, but a bit expensive (especially when I don't want the building). Interestingly the door seems to be similar to horizontal strips of plasticard, but there seems to be two vertical threads though the door that hold it together, so I assume it has been injection moulded as a single piece. I'm assuming that it wouldn't be available as a spare part, but it might be worth asking. Any other ideas welcome.

I'm looking to build a modern rail connected building in which vans are loaded and unloaded undercover and was thinking of using several of the Wills Industrial / Retail units to produce the building (https://peco-uk.com/collections/4mm-oo/products/industrial-retail-unit-base-kit). Obviously if I'm going to shunt wagons inside the building, I need the roller shutter doors across the tracks to be open, but I'd also like to be able to close the doors as well and I'm wondering if anyone has a solution for an operational door - either available to purchase or something they have build themselves. I've seen solutions where a solid door is simply raised vertically, but such a solution requires a building that is at least twice as high as the door and the Wills units are not tall enough for that as a solution. As such, I think any door would have to be semi-flexible, so that it would perhaps move from being vertical when down to horizontal up near the roof, but I'm looking for ideas to copy. Thanks in advance.

Nice drawing - did you ever progress this and if so, did you end up with an operating roller shutter door? If so, how did you do it?

I think this is part of the problem. I'd describe young boys as a reasonably homogeneous group. From a young age, just about all seem to be interested in bin lorries and fire engines. Just about all seem to develop an interest in toy cars and even trains: my son was interested in both Thomas and Chuggington before he went to school and we posses both a wooden railway and Chuggington train set. However, during primary school, children seem to become less homogenous, some become more focused on sport, others on tech and others on crafts and their interests partly determine their friendships. My son has no interest in model railways - the only way I'd be able to hook him into the hobby would be via a high tech offering - something like using Arduino's to produce a response to an input which might just be the movement of a train. The details of the railway would be unimportant. Coding a railway simulator would probably be even better. My daughter on the other hand, despite her obsession with Minecraft, is much more likely to be attracted to model railways as a craft because she enjoys making things, especially in Lego. To her, weathering wagons is a bit like putting on makeup! This is why I think it's difficult to target an older child / teenage market. Once they get to school they realise there is a choice and they like some things better than others and music, girls etc will divert the attention of many young boys away from something like model railways. The ideas being discussed by you and others clearly have some merit in bringing a few more people into the hobby, but I don't see it as a large market and it's certainly not where I'd be putting my money if I was to become a manufacturer, but I'm not.

Yes. My own club does not own any rolling stock. Everything that runs on our club layouts is brought along by our members. In the case of an exhibition, we only use stock belonging to certain members who own stock suitable for the period / location of the model and has been tested previously, but on club nights it can be anything goes. No reason not to have post privatisation stock running alongside pre-grouping stock and sometimes a half built or unpainted kit as well. It's a good way of showing off a new purchase or something that you've built.

No. Templot sort of answers your question. You draw a curve of your given radius and then add a test vehicle to it for which you define the length, width and distance between the bogie pivots plus a clearance envelope and the software draws parallel lines. You can then make a second track at whatever offset you want and add your test vehicle to that track and you'll see whether or not you achieve your desired clearance or whether the two envelopes overlap and you can then redraw your outer radius as appropriate. The alternative is to do it using a piece of track and the stock you actually want to use along with a pencil to mark things out!

For Peco Code 75, back to back dimensions should be 14.4 or 14.5 mm, which is the commercial or intermediate standard. 14.75 mm is for 00 Finescale standards, which is hand built trackwork with a flangeway gap of 1.0 mm (ie the same as EM).

It looks like the three way point that you've included in an asymmetric version, which is only available in Peco's Code 75 range. That may not be an issue, but I note that @Newbie2020 originally set out with the intention of using Code 100. Using the symmetric variant from the Code 100 range would reduce the clearance between the sidings and the continuous run and therefore may not work. Hopefully using code 75 won't be a problem. The problem with making the end section wider is that it would start to open up an area that would be difficult to reach from both the access hatch (at the location currently shown) and the area that you currently have to the bottom left. The area of problematic reach would be the end of the platform at the terminus station. I'd say at the moment it would be full stretch and the wider you make the end board, the more difficult that will become.

That's the main problem, if you have to cut visitor numbers by 75%, then most shows won't make a profit unless they can similarly cut costs and if I was a trader, I'd be reluctant to pay the usual attendance charge if I thought that footfall was going to be just 25% of last year's exhibition.

Is that not the reason why companies like Hornby sell train sets - you get everything you need in a box: track, controller, locomotive and some rolling stock?

https://www.enigon.com/raily/modules/en/ho_peco_streaml._code_100.html#_ states that they are 6.85 degrees for the outer track and 18.81 degrees for the inner track, so closer to 7 and 19.