Dungrange

Is this the same standard that you were referring to earlier, since I note that in each case the H0 is still EM-2. I'm just not sure why the minimum gauge for plain track is listed as 16.2 mm (page 5), but the minimum for crossings is quoted as 16.25 mm (page 4). I'd have assumed that the minimum would be based in the radius - ie the radius would determine whether gauge widening from 16.2 mm is required.

Some of our club layouts are or have been based on real locations and we have chosen to reflect that in the name of the layout, such as 'Newcastleton', which is based on the station of the same name on the former Waverley Route. However, another club layout, 'Puddle Bridge', is again based on a real location: Ormiston in East Lothian. The name we adopted is, I understand, how some locals refer to the bridge where the B6371 crosses over the former track bed to the north of the village of Ormiston. Why did we not call this layout Ormiston, since that's what the station track plan and station building are based on? The answer is that we also chose to incorporate a colliery behind the station, which would not have been there in the period that we tend to operate it - ie the British Railway era. I understand that coal was mined in the area, but although there was at one time a colliery roughly where we have portrayed one, we're not sure how accurately our model represents what was actually there and in any case, I think it was closed by the 1920's, perhaps even earlier. Since we felt that we weren't accurately portraying the station at any particular point in time, and that the operation was inspired by the area more than faithfully representing the timetable as it would have been through Ormiston in the 1950's we chose not to use the real place name and instead use a colloquial name. Ultimately, it's up to you how accurate you want to represent either place, or whether you want to do as we've done and use the track plan for a location and then give it a different name to get round the liberties we have taken.

I have to admit that I had erroneously assumed that those working on Boxing Day would get an enhanced rate of pay, something like time and a half, but it sounds as though that's not the case, or at least not for those working in retail. I'm fortunate in that I have the whole week and a bit off, as my office building is locked up from late on Christmas Eve through the 2nd January. Today was the first day that I left the house. I really don't see the need for people to be out shopping on Boxing Day and if I owned a Model Shop (which I've no intention of doing), I certainly wouldn't be opening up for others. Time at home chilling with the family should be the norm rather than what seems to be an exception. I've got a couple of parcels sitting waiting for me to collect them from the sorting office (which was closed Christmas and Boxing Day), but they can wait. I'll maybe head off to collect them tomorrow.

The 'rot' is caused by impurities in the casting alloy and is not caused by storage conditions or age. However, some of those with the same model as I have, found that their model had 'rotted' within a couple of years of production (ie back around 2010), whereas mine took over a decade to show any signs of an issue. Matt (Foden) indicated that his model of the same vintage was okay a couple of years ago, when he bought and fitted a new chassis. Why therefore did some of the faulty Class 31 models rot quickly, whilst others have rotted more slowly? The most likely explanations are either than some batches of Mazac were more contaminated than others, or storage conditions play a part in how quickly a faulty model rots.

Mick - so do I. The only problem is that the warranty on my toy train ran out about 12 years ago. Alex - yes, I had thought I'd been lucky and got a model from a 'good' or uncontaminated batch. Ten years on from purchase and the model showed no signs of any expansion or cracks on the body. Obviously mine just took longer to fail than those who were reporting issues a decade ago. That's the sort of approach that I suspect I'll take, but I'm not in any rush. The chassis block itself shows no issues and looks nothing like the Heljan example up thread. I have to admit that I was unaware of similar issues with the Heljan Class 47, but then I don't own any, so clearly didn't pay any attention to similar reports. This is the same model that I have (31110) and interestingly, when I last looked at it (probably in 2017 or maybe even 2018) there were no issues with mine either. Perhaps our models were from the same batch, but you removed the chassis from your model in time - I didn't. Like you, mine has spent most of its life stored in its box and only sees occasional use when I take it to the club for a run, so storage conditions may play a part in the life of the model. Of course I'm also assuming that those batches with a higher proportion of contaminant in the alloy will degrade faster than those which may have been less contaminated. I'll probably just leave the body off for now and leave this as one of these 'to do' tasks, that at my current rate of progress may be several years away. The alternative is of course to make a small micro layout / diorama of a scrap yard and dedicate this locomotive to the items awaiting the cutters torch, although I don't think 31110 was still in Dutch livery when it met that fate.

I'm tempted by a pair of 37/6 locomotives in the original DRS livery (ie as 37605 and 37607), but I'm wondering when did DRS started to repaint these locomotives into the 'Compass' livery (as per 37602 and 37606)? I think the first batch of 57/0 that DRS leased from Porterbrook in July 2007 carried the 'Compass' livery from new, but were these the first locomotives in the 'new' (at the time) livery, or had any Class 37's been repainted at that date?

Yes - it seems to be on their website - http://www.phd-design-etchings.co.uk/index.php?route=product/search&search=Ivor

Having recently discovered that one of my Class 31 models from circa 2007 (Dutch 31110) has the dreaded Mazac rot, I'm wondering what best to do with it. It still runs okay, and as has been said above, the chassis block seems fine. I've removed the plastic body and the cracks seem repairable (with a little weathering to disguise). The only part that has noticeably rotted / expanded is the thin part of the chassis under the cab. At one end, it's probably only expanded less than a millimetre, but at the other end, I'd say its expanded by maybe two millimetres. Would it be possible to just cut these ends off and glue into the body leaving a small gap between the central part of the chassis and the rotted parts, or would that simply be a waste of time?

Interestingly, under the FAQs on Peco's website (https://peco-uk.com/pages/faqs?_pos=31&_sid=359ccf854&_ss=r) is one about different rail codes which includes "Today, virtually all ready-to-run locomotives and items of rolling stock can be used in conjunction with Code 75. It should not be classified as fine scale, although it would be true to say it is finer-looking." I have to admit that I thought it was Peco that marketed their entire Code 75 range as 'finescale' but that's maybe just a retailer thing. I have to say, i sympathise with the original poster's confusion with regards what 'Finescale' actually means.

But is that not the problem that prompted the original poster's question? Peco describe their modern commercially produced Code 75 track as 'Finescale' even although it's not quite as 'fine' in the flange-ways as the DOGA Intermediate standard (and could therefore be thought of as course scale), whereas kit wheel manufacturers produce 'Finescale 00' wheel sets (alongside EM and P4 wheel sets), which are not intended to be used on Peco's 'Finescale' track: they are intended for use on track-work built to the DOGA Fine standard (EM-1.7), which is what I always think of as being 00 Finescale. In terms of a track standard, which is what the original question was about, I don't think the wider thoughts on what 'finescale' means when applied to a modelling ethos are particularly relevant. We effectively have commercial / DOGA Intermediate / NMRA standards (there's not a lot between these) as being at the mass produced end of the market; the DOGA Fine standard (being the closest you can get to EM without actually going to EM) at the other end; and 00-SF which tries to be a hybrid between these two groups.

Clive, Since 00-SF is simply another name for EM-2, then any wheels that fit with the specification for EM gauge wheels will obviously work fine with EM-2. The only difference is that the track gauge is 2 mm narrower. Apart from that, 00-SF is exactly the same as EM. If the wheels don't comply with the EM standard (other than the back-to-back being different) then they may need to be replaced. However, in practice, most modern 00 stock is fitted with much finer wheels compared to 20 years ago, and therefore there is generally no need to change the wheels, provided the back-to-back dimensions are as Martin has indicated. Those that don't comply would need to be changed. Compare this with the DOGA Fine standard, which is effectively EM - 1.7 mm (where the back-to-back dimensions of all ready-to-run stock would have to be increased) and you might understand why 00-SF is gaining popularity. However, if you're not interested in building point work with a 1 mm flange-way gap, then it's really irrelevant - just stick with the commercial / intermediate standard.

Is that all you noticed Martin? I was more perplexed by the fact that the train purports to be destined for Forfar and calling at Fife on route, yet arrives at its destination (Forfar) at 4:54 before it's intermediate stop (Fife) at 5:45. Maybe there is a bit of time travelling going on (forwards and backwards simultaneously). No idea if any of the journey is on Finescale track.

Looking at the Realtrack Models website, it states that pack J includes wagons numbered 10607, 10612 and 10625. Coincidentally, the equivalent 00 pack J on the Accurascale website shows the same wagons with the building a better environment branding. The Accurascale 00 packs K and M also include the building a better environment branding, so I'd assume that the same artwork has been used across both scales. The Accurascale website indicates that the 00 pack L contains models of VTG 10602, 10610, and 10613 in the Heidelberg sub-branding and going back to the Realtrack website, N gauge pack L seems to include the same running numbers as the 00 equivalent. As such, I'd suggest that this is the only pack that is likely to contain the branding that you want. See https://accurascale.co.uk/collections/pca-bulk-cement-wagon/products/pca-bulk-cement-castle-cement-pack-l

I guess it depends on how detailed the items you are looking for need to be and how much you are willing to spend. I've recently ordered quite a few 1:75 scale pieces of plastic off AliExpress. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32963924375.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.67094c4d2tbDdm - is an example of the sort of things that are available, albeit there are other sellers. I'm still waiting for the desks from this seller, but I've already received tables, chairs and beds, which are all to a reasonable standard. Basically I don't want to pay too much for furniture that may not be all that obvious other than in the lit rooms. Unfortunately, there is a better range available in 1:50, but that's no use for 00.

Ease of access to all functions via a single touchscreen, coupled with the 5 Amp capability was the reason that I selected the Sig-na-trak ACE2 (https://signatrak.co.uk/products/ace-dcc-controller-accessories/dcs2044-ace-15-48) as my preferred choice. That just fits within your budget. There are plans for a separate interface board that will allow LocoNet and XpressNet capabilities along with a computer interface, but that is currently on hold at the moment and will be an additional cost. I guess the question is what functionality you need now and what you are willing to leave until later?

Okay, I, and others, thought you were actually trying to reduce the distance from the tips of the switchblades to the common crossing, which would require you to alter the geometry of the common crossing (ie the frog angle) and change the radius of the closure rails. However if all you are trying to do is effectively overlap two turnouts to create some form of asymmetric three way point to save space, then that should be achievable by modification of a ready to run point. There is nothing to stop you having the tips of the second set of points at the end of the wing rail on your common crossing by just pruning the turnout as much as you require. However, once you want to place the switch for the second turnout in advance of the first common crossing, I think you'd be better just to build from scratch. If it has to be a point with a straight rail, then either the Hornby or Peco Set track point would be the best start point. You're not going to get anything shorter.

Would that perhaps be from the period where manufacturers designed their stock to go round first radius curves (ie back in the 1980's)? Peco may have produced a first radius version at some point in the past, but I don't think they make that any more. It would however explain why the current Settrack version is referred to as 'medium' radius. Perhaps there was a 'small' radius Y point that used first radius curves and examples might still be found second hand.

The shortest point that I'm aware of is the Y point in the Settrack range - https://peco-uk.com/products/y-turnout-medium-radius3. However, if that is too big, then you are into building your own: I don't think trying to modify a ready-to-run point is viable. Note that to make the point shorter, you will have to reduce both radii to less than second radius, so you may have problems with some stock not fitting round the curve (this is the minimum design radius for a lot of Ready-to-run stock) and you may also have problems with couplings. Personally, I think you need to rethink your track plan.

Did you just use the default Hornby speaker, or did you upgrade it to something better. From my limited experience, the speaker seems to be as important as the choice of sound chip / project. The issue is really that the alternatives aren't what everyone thinks of as affordable.

That sounds like a good idea, as it ensures that you don't electrocute an aircraft that ends up on the railway. However, is there any mechanism that would avoid cutting the power to an Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) that just happened to be passing on the railway at that time. It would seem rather stupid removing power from an EMU as it passes the end of the runway and then letting the errant aircraft plough into it. Maybe it doesn't matter if that cable is effectively on railway land, in which case the power would be cut just a second before impact. Do you know where the cable is located?

I'm tempted to agree with you there. If the problem is always the dummy power car irrespective of which decoder is fitted in it, then I think that points to there being an issue with the PCB on the dummy power car. You therefore have a choice - send the model to Hornby to get them to look at it, or just leave it with normal Gaugemaster decoders. That choice is up to you. However, if there is an issue with the PCB in the dummy power car, you may also get a similar problem at a later date after you've fitted an ESU or Zimo product. By that time, Hornby will be perfectly entitled to say that the model is outside of Warranty. Is it really the end of the world being without a locomotive for a month?

I'd also go for 1:100 being a common architectural scale. For me, I find N gauge a bit small, but I'd be happy with something a bit smaller than 00. In many respects I think TT seems ideal, it's just there isn't the trade support for the scale. I've never really understood why model railways settled on 1:76 (00) and 1:148 (N), whereas model aircraft settled on 1:72 and 1:144. Ideally all forms of modelling would have chosen the same scales irrespective of what these were. Of course there is little chance of that happening now.

But these adverts are served up by Google Ads based on what Google knows about your browsing history. If you're one of these people who studiously delete browsing history to thwart attempts by Google etc to categorise what you are interested in, then it will just be a random advert. As far as I am aware, RMWeb has no control over the adverts placed in that panel by Google.

Exactoscale products are available through the Scalefour society's store as an alternative supplier. However, I think the fundamental question over accuracy versus convenience is one that only you can answer. You either hand build track with the correct company pattern of chairs, or you accept a more generic typical BR pattern for convenience. I know which one I would choose, but that choice really needs to be made by you.

I'm assuming "load 5" means with five coaches as a trailing load, but of course the answer to your question depends on how heavy these coaches are and how free running they are. If they are fitted with lighting, then there will be wiper contacts or other pickups which will increase their resistance. There is then the issue of the locomotives and how much the particular locomotives that you have will haul on the flat. In general, diesel locomotives tend to be capable of hauling heavier loads compared to steam locomotives. Locomotives with diecast bodies will tend to haul more than plastic bodied locomotives. Is it going to be possible to add additional weight above the driving wheels of your preferred models to increase traction? As others have said, curves also limit the load that can be pulled up a particular gradient. 1:30 may be okay on the straight, but not if that gradient includes 18" curves or point-work. I'm not personally a fan of gradients having been put off them in my teenage years (something like a 1:24 gradient seemed to limit me to two couch trains with some locomotives), but if you really want to have gradients, then make them as gentle as possible and like the prototype, aim for something flatter than 1:30 if you can and probably flatter than 1:40.