Dungrange

Presumably the first is a Loksound V4 and second has the newer Loksound V5, which has a larger memory for sound files and I think more functions available. I'd therefore suggest that the first is older stock. That said, I'm no expert.

I think your calculations are out by a factor of ten. 30 m of track is 3,000 cm. 3,000 * 4 * 0.1 = 1,200 cubic centimetres. The rest of your assumptions seem okay, but you haven't specifically allowed anything for the ballast shoulder. That is, if your track is on say 3 mm thick cork, then you may have more than 1 mm depth in the part that forms the shoulder, although that may be included in the extra you have allowed for point-work. There is also the issue of wastage. If you carefully vacuum up any ballast that doesn't stick and then reuse that you'll use less than if you let that fall to the floor to be swept up. You perhaps need to allow something like 50% extra for wastage, so in my opinion you probably need to buy something like 1 - 1.5 litres of ballast for your layout. It's perhaps also worth highlighting that the quantity of ballast you may need will also vary a bit by era. If you're trying to create an era where the ballast was below the tops of the sleepers, then you will obviously use less than if you are trying to recreate the more modern scenario, where the tops of the sleepers may be covered in ballast. Then there is the question of whether you are ballasting within the six foot? I'm not aware of any ready reckoner anywhere, probably because there are so many variables. The approach you have taken seems to be the most logical.

The actual turnout also has a distinct curve between the frog and the end of the turnout - it's not just the .pdf. I'd estimate that the straight section through the common crossing on the #7 is very short - somewhere in the region of 21 mm. I'd say it was straight from approximately 5 mm before the knuckle, through the flangeway to approximately 5 mm past the tip of the vee. It then starts to curve again within the wing rail. It probably doesn't do that in the prototype, where I think it should be straight beyond the end of the wing rail, but these are the sort of compromises that we need to accept to avoid excessively long turnouts, which most of us don't have space for.

Yes, that's correct and it should be the same for UK track, but I agree that for many turnouts it isn't. As I said previously, the substitution radius of the diverging or inner curve is not a constant radius. The radius through the switch will be determined by the radius of the outer curve (ie 60") and the section through the common crossing should be straight - the length of that straight being determined by the crossing angle. That therefore means that the radius of the closure rails (between the switch and the common crossing) must be less than the overall substitution radius. Harlequin has indicated that the radius of the closure rails is about 30" for the Code 83 #7 turnout and 28" for the Code 75 / Code 100 Streamline turnout. I've not tried measuring these myself, but placing one turnout on top of the other, I can see that the radii are very similar. Both of these would sound about right for turnouts that have substitution radii of around 36" and 30" respectively.

I can't see what you can do apart from: lifting all of the track in the problem sections and relaying slightly further apart; or imposing a restriction on the stock that is permitted to use certain lines (a bit like the real railway). Obviously your Tracksetta differ in radius by 3" (76 mm), whereas if you are using the Peco track spacing gauge, this will ensure that your tracks are either 2" (51 mm) or 63 mm apart depending on whether you are using the streamline or Setrack setting. I suspect that this is the source of your problem rather than movement when pushing home the track pins. A 21" curve is about 4th radius Setrack, so I'm guessing that the wider spacing is probably most appropriate, especially if you are running longer coaches. What distance apart were you trying to set the tracks?

Never heard of it. Are you sure it's not a mistype of Roco's Z21 DCC Command Station, or alternatively someone's shorthand for Hornby's Zero 1 multi-train control system from back in the 1980's and effectively superseded by modern DCC?

As far as I am aware, there are no British outline Z gauge models available. Having originally been introduced by Marklin, a German company, the most comprehensive range has always been of German locomotives. However, I understand that there is now some US suppliers for those more interested in US prototypes such as Micro-trains https://www.micro-trains.com/index.php?_route_=z-scale. Unfortunately, I can't answer any of your questions about best manufacturer as I don't model in the scale. If you specifically want British outline stock, then I think your choices are either N or T gauges (9 mm and 3 mm gauges respectively).

I don't think that there is anything wrong with the geometry in Anyrail. The image below shows from left to right; a Peco Code 83 #7 right hand curved turnout; a Peco Code 100 Streamline right hand curved turnout; and a Peco Code 100 left hand curved turnout sat on top of a Peco Code 83 #7 Left hand curved turnout. This is just to show that the Code 83 geometry definitely has a smoother diverging alignment due to having a larger substitution radius.

That's interesting, although the diverging or inner curve is never going to be a constant curve, since you have a combination of the radius of the switch, the radius of the closure rails and the angle of the Vee. The Code 83 range has a V angle of 1:7, whereas for the code 75 range it's around 1:4.5. This means that the substitution radius of the Code 83 range is greater than the substitution radius of the code 75 range. That is, if you were to join around 30 turnouts Code 75 turnouts to form a circle, you'd have a circle of circa 30" radius, whereas if you were to do the same with the Code 83 range, you'd have a circle with a radius of around 3'. The radius through the switch should be about the same for both turnouts and what you are stating is that the radius through the closure rails is also the same, which means that the more generous geometry of the Code 83 range is effectively due entirely to the more acute crossing angle and therefore shorter length of the 28" radius in the closure rail.

I think I've found it - it looks like this started life as a DPM model of a hotel - https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/woodland-scenics-m-t-arms-hotel-dpm11900/

What kit was used for that building? It has a fairly modular look to it.

Peco's North American Code 83 #7 Curved turnouts are 60" / 36". They are less sharp than the Code 75 / Code 100 Streamline equivalents, which have a substitution radius of about 30", but I think you're correct that part of the curve is actually less.

The problem with pinning the track directly the baseboard is that the vibrations caused by the electric motors rotating are transferred directly to the baseboard, which acts as an amplifier, a bit like the body of an acoustic guitar. The intention of using cork is to act as a damper. Cork does provide some damping because it is a softer material with voids in its structure. The problem is that many people use cork and then ballast using PVA glue which soaks into these voids and makes the cork layer one solid hard layer, thus removing it's abilities to damp down the vibrations and therefore removing it's ability to reduce noise. Therefore, if using cork to reduce noise, it's important that you use a latex based glue that wont penetrate the voids. That said, I intend to use the Woodland Scenics foam, plus some from C&L, but I can't pass judgement on it yet. I've never tried SCARM, but you could try Anyrail. The free version has a 50 track piece limit, but that should be enough for a small layout. If the track was ballasted, then I think it will be difficult to lift most of it without damage. Yes, you'll get some of it lifted okay, but perhaps not as much as you think. It will also be time consuming trying to get all the glue etc off the previous baseboard to make it saleable and I'm not sure that there will be a great market. Why would someone pay what you paid for the board when they could just get a new board without glue marks and bits of ballast etc. My feeling is that you'd be better to sell the railway as is: baseboard, track etc. Someone else may be willing to take it off your hands for their own son to run Thomas on. You'll probably make a loss over what you have spent on it, but it has given you and your son pleasure. Regarding ballast, just do exactly what you did before and then 'weather it' just like the real thing. Black ballast is not laid black, but started the same colour as the rest. If you are trying to replicate diesel leaks, then just add some watered down black paint. If your trying to replicate coal dust and ash, then simply add this over the top of your ballast. Regarding grass, I think what you are referring to is known as 'static grass' of which there are a few suppliers. Basically, you spread the area with glue and then apply the fibres through an applicator which has a battery between the sieve and a probe that you stick into the glue. This means that the fibres become charged as they fall through this sieve and effectively stand on end. Good luck with the new layout, whatever you decide on.

Ultimately it is up to you and what you want. What boxes to you want to tick? For me the issue with that plan would be the gradients as the red line seems to rise on a gradient to cross a road and the access to the blue goods yard and then falls back. I built something similar in 00 on a 6' x 4' baseboard in my teenage years and haven't been tempted to use gradients again, as the combination of a relatively steep gradient (something like 1:30) and a curve (it was probably first radius) meant that any train with more than two coaches seemed to struggle. As that looks like a 00 plan, there would obviously be scope to elongate the track plan if you are working in N and that should mean less severe gradients and also a proportionately greater radius. As I don't work in N, I can't comment on the haulage capabilities of N gauge locomotives on gradients. Can anyone else advise on that aspect.

I agree with Ian - you need to have some informal meetings to try and attract a reasonable number of potential members and then see what interests you share and what you each want from a club. An annual fee of £20 is very low - I'm currently paying £144 per year (£12 per month) and we are likely to have to double that in the near future as we anticipate being evicted from our current premises and rents in Edinburgh are relatively high: we have a good deal at the moment. If your proposed club wants to build layouts, then it's helpful not to be hiring a hall and instead have your own club room so that part built layouts can be left up at the end of the night. However, there are clubs that operate as you suggest: hire a hall, erect a layout, operate said layout for a few hours, dismantle layout, pack it away and go home. The length of meetings then has to be arranged around this. My club meets from 19:30 to 22:00, so just 2 1/2 hours, but none of that time is spent erecting or dismantling a layout (other than when we are dismantling to go to an exhibition or swap layouts). If you are hiring a hall, then I would anticipate that you'd have longer meetings. What do your target members do - noon to 6 pm may suit the retired, but isn't particularly convenient for those of us who work. If that's a weekend, sometimes family commitments mean that for someone like me it would be difficult to commit to those sort of hours, but everyone is different. Your membership would find a consensus view with regards times as well as days and the subscription that they are willing to pay. You'll need a Constitution and appoint a Committee and you may find it difficult to fill these positions. I became the secretary of my club a couple of years ago simply because our previous secretary stated at the AGM that he wished to step down and no-one wanted to take over. After an awkward silence I agreed to take on the role and for the last two AGMs I've simply been re-elected unopposed. The same is true of the Chairman and the Treasurer.

At least when our model trains derail, they tend not to end up in a pile of broken bits. It could be an expensive hobby if you were to crash too often.

I can't vouch for the reliability of the arrangement that you are proposing, but it is what I intend to build, based on the fact that others seem to manage this successfully. The Peco Streamline Curved point has, I understand, a substitution radius of 30" (762 mm) on the diverging track so that's likely to the radius that you will require for sizing out your corner boards. The corner boards would probably be best if arranged as two separate boards each being 45 degree of turn (rather than single boards as you have drawn) as otherwise they are likely to be quite cumbersome. The size of these corner boards will also be influenced by the number of tracks that you propose to have in your fiddle yard: the wider your fiddle yard boards, the bigger the corners will be. Choice of software is up to you. Anyrail seems reasonably straightforward the times that I have used it.

Well I'd like one (or maybe even two) in SPT Carmine and Cream livery to operate alongside my First 'Barbie' liveried one. However, maybe it's only fair that you cater for other regions first. It gives everyone a chance to buy at least one.

As others have said, DCC users can disable DC control using a Configuration Variable (CV): CV29. Seeing the topic thread, my assumption was as above that the previous owner had disabled DC control and this was your problem. However, if CV29 is set to disable DC running, then it shouldn't be possible to get the locomotive to creep along the track under any circumstances. The decoder should completely ignore the voltage difference between the rails (which is how DC operation works). As such, I'm not convinced that this is the problem. However, I agree that the best place to start is by removing the DCC decoder and putting the blanking plate back in. This will remove one potential issue from the equation.

I'm assuming that you have used the 'street level' modules for each floor of the shopping centre to provide the increased vertical spacing between the floors. Is that correct?

Can you possibly elaborate on your approach to anglicising the DPM kits? Looking at the range, these are a number of panels that are glued together to give different window positions etc. However, whilst the modules are obviously scale-able, I'm not sure what to change to make the buildings more British looking. Obviously building a pitched roof (the range seems to be focused on flat roof buildings), but apart from that, is it just the additional of details like down-pipes etc?

That's a nice model of Demark/Emblem House. Obviously that is scratchbuilt and in 2 mm scale, but is anyone aware of a source of larger doors in 00? All the plastic door and window packs that I seem to have found on-line don't have the prestigious look of commercial, corporate or municipal buildings.

Yes, the sound fitted models as supplied by Charlie have two decoders. The Scotrail one that I have has, I understand, two V4 Loksound Select chips, whereas the newer models will have the V5 Loksound Select fitted in each car. One of the reasons I got the sound fitted one was the fact that it was clearly cheaper to buy it sound fitted from the start than buy two sound chips a later date.

I agree that in the short term, the greatest pressure would obviously fall on the Channel Ports as they handle proportionately more cross-Channel traffic. However, I believe that some traffic from the EU currently comes into the deep water ports and via coastal shipping and that proportion would likely increase post-Brexit if Dover etc fail to cope and importers need to consider other options. Whilst I agree that increasing the clearance time for a container from 3 hours to 24 hours shouldn't be a major problem if it's due to a short-term impact (weather or industrial action), Brexit will be a permanent change and therefore what isn't cleared on day one will have to clear on day two in addition to the traffic on day two. As such, the delays are likely to keep increasing until our Custom's capacity is increased to cope with the increased workload. How long that takes, I have no idea. However, I don't see anything wrong with companies like Hornby considering their supply chain risks, as presumably it will help them to plan contingency measures if there are a few more 'bumps in the road' than the Government expect. That said, since I don't think there is much in the Hornby catalogue that I really want, I'm not particularly concerned by the thought that certain models may not make it to the shops before Christmas.

That's the point that Hornby are making, our Customs Officers will have much more work to do post-Brexit as most inbound cargo will require Customs clearance, whereas at the moment, the 50% of goods that originate from within the EU doesn't. Therefore unless we double our existing customs infrastructure (staff and buildings) there will be delays to incoming supply chains irrespective of the country of origin. This delay would obviously be worst in the immediate aftermath of a 'No Deal' and therefore impact the supply of goods for Christmas trading, which is obviously important to a company like Hornby. That said, the impact on Hornby is unlikely to be any worse than for any other consumer facing business supplying the Christmas present market. As for why someone at Hornby think a Brexit themed train set would sell well, I have no idea. Maybe they think interest in it would go on and on, just like the whole Brexit saga in the House of Commons. Personally, I think it was probably a way of gaining wider exposure for the Press Release. It gets people talking about a trading update.