Dungrange

I think their website stated a land address when I ordered last year, but it appears that they no longer have the shop in slough (which closed in February) and they are now only selling on-line whilst winding down the business. Their blog states that the business will close completely in September this year and a lot of product lines will not be reordered, so basically once they run out of stock, that will be it. https://www.modeljunction.info/smartblog/30_End-Of-An-Era--.html However, I agree that even although they no longer have the shop, they should still have a land address and another means of contact besides a web contact form. I'm assuming that they are simply fulfilling orders from remaining stock in the owners home.

My understanding is that Model Junction are based in Slough - https://www.yell.com/biz/model-junction-slough-4278563/. I agree that their address doesn't seem to be on their website and looking at the invoice they sent me when I ordered from them last year, it doesn't seem to give an address either, which is strange because I thought invoices should display the company registration details and registered office. That said, I had no issues with my order and there are a few positive comments on an old RMWeb thread.

My understanding is that these units will both be powered and driven, albeit perhaps not that much. Prior to Covid-19 restrictions, West Highland services left Glasgow Queen Street as a pair of Class 156 Units, and I understood that the Class 153 will be fitted between these two two car sets for the journey north to Crianlarich. However, at Crianlarich the train is split in two, with one Class 156 unit proceeding to Oban and the other to Fort William and Mallaig. I think that the Class 153 units are to continue on the Fort William service, but that would mean that between Crianlarich and Fort William the Class 153 will be leading in one direction and trailing in the other, since I can't see them re-marshalling the train at Fort William.

Andy, Welcome to RMWeb. The important thing about noise is to avoid getting glue into the voids in the underlay. Using cork and then filling the voids with PVA glue when ballasting simply removes any noise reducing properties that the cork had by making it rock solid. This is where a latex glue is allegedly better, but at the moment I can't speak from experience. I also can't confirm from experience that foam underlay is better than cork, but it's foam underlay that I am going for: a mixture of Woodland Scenics and C&L. However, there are other sources of similar materials that others use, which are not specifically sold for model railways, but seem to be very similar and a bit cheaper if you require loads. As for whether to use H0 or N, that is up to you, but if you want something in between the width of the N and H0 rolls, then you could just cut the sheets to the width that you want - https://woodlandscenics.woodlandscenics.com/show/item/ST1477. The other consideration is thickness - I think the N gauge range is 3 mm thick, but the H0 range is 5 mm thick. I think the thicker material should be better at reducing noise if that is a primary consideration.

I'm assuming that 1 - 9 are the possible locomotive addresses that the Bachmann EZ controller can access. It shouldn't be necessary to try all of these as the address should not have changed from when you first got it to work and if the decoder was reset, then it should revert to the default address of 3. I don't really understand your references to ground or common. My understanding is that the red and black wires from the decoder always go to the track (via the locomotive pickups) and the orange and grey wires from the decoder go to the terminals on the motor. You shouldn't need any of the other wires from the decoder to get the locomotive to move. The Red / Black wires provide the electrical circuit that powers the decoder (from the track). The Grey / Orange wires provide the electrical circuit that powers the motor (from the decoder). There shouldn't be any connections between any of these wires. The lighting circuits should most likely be connected to yellow, white and blue, but these shouldn't be connected to the motor terminals - I note that your second post indicates that the yellow wire goes to the left brush, which would be incorrect. If you go with stripping all of the wiring out and starting again with a new chip, make sure you test the locomotive / motor on DC before attempting to fit a new decoder.

I think a "Cameo" is effectively the same as a "Diorama" - something that is essentially small and static, along the lines of the various "cake box challenges" that have appeared on RMWeb. A "Cameo" isn't intended to be operated. A "Micro" on the other hand is a very small layout, which is intended to be operated - ie there is some operating potential. I think it's generally assumed to be a layout that takes up no more than four square feet (in 4 mm scale), so I'd say anything up to seven square feet for those modelling in 7 mm scale. However, the four square feet metric seems to be a fairly arbitrary measure and one that seems a little small for my tastes. I don't think there is any definition for "Big Micro", but I'd take it to be somewhere around the upper end of the "Micro" definition and strangely it was the term "Big Micro" that prompted me to look at this thread!! Of course trying to categorise artworks into "Cameo", "Diorama", "Micro" or anything else is as fraught as trying to categorise artists by music genres!!

I note you refer to Mk 1, 2, 3 and 4. Were these wagons produced in different batches and are there differences between these. If so, do you which type the Heljan model represents? I asked a question about these wagons some eight years ago now - how time flies

I've ordered from Tim Horn on two occasions and have been satisfied with what has been delivered. His baseboards are certainly easier to assemble that trying to build your own and better quality plywood than you'll get from B&Q. Unfortunately Tim's website is down at the moment (https://tim-horn.co.uk/) and I note on his Facebook page (https://en-gb.facebook.com/timhornlasercutting/) that he isn't taking any new orders for the next few months until he is able to clear a backlog of orders. Therefore, if you're in a hurry, it looks like you'll have to try someone else and probably be prepared to wait.

Peco produce Pandrol Rail Fastenings in their Individulay range - part IL112 - https://peco-uk.com/products/pandrol-rail-fixings?_pos=1&_sid=0dcf65306&_ss=r. You'd be buying the sleepers, rail fixings and rail separately, so you'd need a set of track gauges to assemble the track. Exactoscale still make their concrete sleeper bases (which is what I intend to use when I get to the track laying stage), but you are correct that they no longer sell direct through their website, so you'll need to join either the EM or Scalefour society if you want them in a hurry. Whether that is cost effective depends on how much track you need. Exactoscale used to charge a 15% surcharge if you bought through their website, so in the past if you required large quantities, joining one or other society would probably work out cheaper. I think that both societies would also sell to those attending their respective exhibitions, but I've no idea when these may take place. The problem is that that only deals with plain line - unfortunately I'm not aware of any flat bottom points and crossings. Colin Craig used to produce copper-clad kits, but these are no longer available. I'm still looking for a replacement supplier.

I suspect that reference may be to the JSA wagons, where a twin pack is £70 (ie £35 per wagon), albeit that is not actually half the £50 price of a single Salmon. The ones that are half the price are much smaller two axle wagons. You also have to remember that the Salmon is a relatively long wagon (ie longer than the Accurascale JSA, which I think you may be comparing this to), so the price needs to reflect this. The Cavalex TEA is £42.50, so only slightly cheaper than the Salmon, but although the Salmon has a flat deck, the under frame of the Salmon is more complex than the TEA. The most appropriate comparison should perhaps be made to Hattons FEA-E track panel carrier, which is £50 - exactly the same price as the Flangeway Salmon. 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 Like you, I was hoping that the retail price of these would be nearer the £40 mark, but since it's a wagon that was on my "wish list" for many years, I'll still be buying some from the second batch, since it's the later air braked version that I want. I may just buy a couple less than I might have done. I'm just hoping that the price doesn't increase too much between the first and second batches.

Yes, it seems to vary with your browser settings. As I said above, clicking on the link that @hmrspaul posted, takes me straight to the 3D image of a 66 and ZZA (and I suspect that it may do the same for many others), but Google Chrome is my default browser. However, if I cut and past the same URL into an older version of Microsoft Explorer, I get the image of a class 37 with a coach. Same URL, but two different images. However, it doesn't matter which browser I use, I can toggle between the 3D and aerial image using the Globe View button. Obviously in Chrome it is enabled by default and in other browsers it's disabled by default.

Clicking on the above link I see what appears to be a DRS Class 66 sitting beside a ZZA snow plough. What is sitting there is clearer in '3D' setting, albeit the 3D rendering of the Class 66 is poor. However, I note that if I click on the globe symbol in the bottom right, and disable 'globe view' I do indeed see a class 37 with a single coach sitting in the siding that the ZZA is sitting in in the 3D image. I'm not sure if it is the same class 66 that's sitting beside it. Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough to recognise coach roofs, so I'll take your word for it that it may be 'Caroline'.

That's strange - I can add it to my basket, go to the checkout and enter billing details. I didn't try going any further since I don't really want a current version.

A direct link to the page to order the 00 version https://www.revolutiontrains.com/product/caroline-975025-inspection-saloon-oo-4mm/ I'm waiting for the turquoise green version to be announced as a new addition.

Any ideas why it's not being produced in the bright turquoise “viridian” green livery that it carried from 2006 to 2015? That would be the version that would fit my time period.

Your lack of a specific era isn't an issue, but the style and methods of ballasting has changed over the years. It's not unusual for ballast to be on top of sleepers these days, but in the past, the tops of the sleepers were usually more obvious and the top of the ballast may have been below the tops of the sleepers, particularly off the mainline in yards and the like. You'd need more ballast to achieve a more modern, covered sleeper, look than further back in time. The sleeper depth on Hornby track is like Peco, which is thicker than some other brands of track. One thing that hasn't been highlighted is whether or not you intend to use track underlay. If the track is fixed directly to the baseboard, then you'll use less ballast than if you use an underlay, as you will probably use extra ballast to create the 'shoulder'. How much extra will depend on the thickness of the underlay. The other variable in deciding how much you need, is your technique for ballasting: some ballast won't stick when you glue it down. Do you recover that for reuse or is it tipped on the floor, vacuumed up and wasted?

The amount used will also very by the thickness of the sleepers on the track that you are using. Using thin sleeper track like SMP will use less ballast than say Peco Streamline, where the sleepers are thicker. As has been stated above, era, number of tracks and spacing will all influence usage. I suspect that you'll have to place two orders. First one, see how you go, and then work out from your usage how much it will take you to finish the layout.

That's surely very layout dependent. If you want a minimum radius of 36", then there wouldn't be much point in buying an 18" Tracksetta. If you're working with train set radius curves, then you may have little use for the 60" Tracksetta (although the large radius ones can be used to provide a transition into something tighter. The plan for my layout is to have a minimum radius of 30", so that's the one that I'll probably use most.

https://www.aspiregiftsandmodels.co.uk/product/Bachmann-36-062-class-150-couplings-x4-with-electrical-contacts/ It's not a supplier I know anything about, but their website seems to say that they have them in stock: ie I can add them to my basket. Might be worth dropping them an e-mail to see if they will post to Australia.

You'll need a back-to-back gauge - see http://www.doubleogauge.com/shop.htm - third item down. Assuming you are using commercial point-work and unmodified ready to run stock, you'd want the "Intermediate standard", which is 14.4 mm across the milled faces. This should be a tight fit between the backs of the wheels on each axle. If the gauge doesn't fit, then the back-to back dimension is too small (ie less than 14.4 mm) and if the gauge slips in too easily, then the back-to-back dimension is too great.

Strathspey Railway Charitable Trust - SC040498

It was covered in one of the modelling magazines a few years ago - I think it might have been Model Rail. I have the article somewhere, although I've still to tackle my conversion.

So, if orange piping was banned from 1995, how long has it taken to be largely eradicated from the network? My primary period of interest is circa 2005-2010, so I'm interested in knowing whether it was still common by this time period. I'd assumed that it was, but now I'm not so sure. I'm assuming that the best way of modelling cables clipped to the top of sleepers is just to use fine black painted wire glued to the sleeper?

Irrespective of Government Advice, Traders will make their own decisions. My employer issued a broadcast e-mail at the start of this month advising staff to ignore the Government's 'Road Map' even before the Prime Minister spoke. All of our staff are currently furloughed (some) or working from home (the majority) and that will continue until at least the end of this month. However, corporate travel restrictions have been extended through to the end of September. That means that my employer has banned me from making any non-essential travel during that period to attend something like a training course, conference or trade fair. Although I don't work for a model railway company, if the Board at Hornby or Bachmann adopt a similar view, exhibitions in that time frame are unlikely to be viable. Why September? That's our company year end and the viewpoint is that this won't be over before then. I fully expect these restrictions by my employer to be extended, so I'm doubtful that many exhibitions will go ahead this year.

I don't have an exhibition to think about, but as the secretary of my local model railway club I also find myself pondering the way in which we might be able to safely reopen the club when we are allowed to do so. Prior to the committee's decision on 17 March to suspend all forthcoming meetings, we met two evenings a week. A typical club night at the Edinburgh and Lothians MRC might have seen a dozen members in the club room at the same time. However, if we are to insist on members remaining at least 2 m apart whilst in the premises, I think we need to restrict the number of members to a maximum of six, but a maximum of four or five members per session would be better, as our club room is not big. The simple answer would seem to be that we open the club room more often, so that everyone could be allocated an evening that they would be allowed to attend with three or four others or even have day and evening sessions. However, I understand that the virus can survive on surfaces for several hours or even days, so who cleans the club room after each visit? If a member with Coronavirus comes down to the club room and leaves the virus on a surface within the club room, how many groups of people are exposed to the risk of contracting Covid-19? If there is a few days between anyone being in the club room, the risk might be low, but if we have afternoon and evening sessions on consecutive days, then the risk could be a lot higher. Then there is the question of should members have to wear face masks whilst in the club room? Might it be better to simply accept that proper social distancing would be difficult and instead we should work with the concepts of social bubbles? That is, if we divide the membership up into small groups of four or five individuals, then we simply allow these people to meet up at a specified time, but keep them separate from the rest of the members. That's effectively the approach that I understand is being used in Danish Primary Schools. Of course, that doesn't solve the issues around holding our Annual General Meeting, which our constitution states will be held in May each year. That has been postponed for now, but most members try to attend our AGM, which means we usually squeeze 20+ people into the club room. We simply cannot accommodate that number in the club room with social distancing, even if all our layouts were removed and stored elsewhere (which isn't practical). We could have a virtual AGM on MS Teams, but since three of our members don't even have internet access, I don't see that working. If we need to wait until social distancing restrictions are removed, then we run the risk of having our next AGM two years after the last one unless we are able to hire a hall somewhere specifically for that purpose. I think my start point will be to try and arrange a committee meeting via MS Teams (a first for the club) and try to thrash out what our options might be. It might then be necessary to conduct a poll. Guidance would be good, but ultimately, I think it's something that will end up being a bespoke agreement between club members.