Dungrange

I wouldn't say that they weren't good, but the unit was a basic toy. I was perfectly happy with it in the 1980's, but that is the opinion of a 12-year old boy playing with a train set. Pressing a button to make a whistle sound as the train I was driving stopped at my station on a 6' x 4' baseboard was part of the fun. From memory, the 'chuff chuff' sound was better than had gone before, but then further back sound locomotives made a click click sound as a piece of plastic bounced on a rotating cog! If all you want is background sound, I'd have thought you'd be better just playing real sounds. I know I have my old super sound generator in the attic somewhere, so I should maybe dig it out and hear what it sounds like, since I've never used it in over 25 years.

I suppose something from Train-Tech would perhaps be the closest modern equivalent - http://www.train-tech.com/index.php/sound/sound-track, if you want to be able to record your own sounds. Alternatively, there are battery powered modules for fitting in a locomotive (http://www.train-tech.com/index.php/sound/sfx-sound-capsules), but if on-board sound, synchronised with the movement of the train is what you want, then DCC would be the best way to go - it is the modern standard. There are also various 'sound effect' apps for android and probably for Apple devices, but these will have no degree of synchronisation with your trains. If you don't want to go DCC, then I wouldn't bother with sound.

I don't see why not, but it was fairly basic. I had one in my first train set, which I think I received at Christmas 1983: two buttons to press to give a generic two-tone diesel horn and a further button to give a generic steam whistle. I think the 'chuff' rate was simply controlled by the track voltage, so if the track voltage is low, then the 'chuff' rate would be low and as the track voltage increased, so too did the rate at which it when 'chuff chuff'. As a toy, it was great for it's day, but probably not particularly great compared to what is available now.

I'd start with the changes suggested by JDW to at least get two independent circuits. A 'fiddle' yard is normally an 'off-stage' area to handle trains in an area that is meant to represent the rest of the railway network and although you say a decent fiddle yard is a non-negotiable must, you don't seem to have one. I wouldn't consider the yard in the centre of the layout as a fiddle yard - it looks more like a goods yard or carriage sidings. That is, it is a place that I would envisage being part of the scenery. In terms of operation, a train starting in these sidings will have to drive into the headhunt, then propel the train onto the inner circuit before it can head off in an anticlockwise direction. However, to get to the outer loop, you'll need to use your run round facilities at the front. To get back to central sidings, which it sounds as though that is where you intend to store trains, you'd have to go through the same series of moves in the reverse direction. That doesn't seem very satisfying from my point of view, but if that is what you and your daughter want, that's fine. I tend to look at a track plan and trace where I'd expect to drive that train to and then how I'd drive it back to where it started from and make up my mind from that exercise whether or not the track plan would provide me with the interest that I would like.

If you want these in 00, then they are available in kit form from C-Rail and have been for many years - https://www.c-rail-intermodal.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=25_29&product_id=124 They also do a bulk pack of five 30' kits - https://www.c-rail-intermodal.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=25_29&product_id=125 They also do IFF transfers for these kits but I'm sure you could apply these to other containers if you wish - https://www.c-rail-intermodal.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=25_30&product_id=120 Also IBC / UBC transfers - https://www.c-rail-intermodal.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=25_30&product_id=121

But, that's because all that matters to the S&T engineers is the moving part - the point blades - and what position these are. Like the general public, they have no need to differentiate between the point blades and the common crossing or any of the other S&C components that make up the turnout. For anyone with no need to distinguish between the different parts of a turnout, then the generic use of 'points' to mean all S&C components is acceptable if imprecise.

That's good practise, but I understand that if you are using the 'frog' output on the Digital IP rather than the separate single pole changeover switch then the frog will be powered via your accessory bus while your stock rails will be on your track bus. This means that when a train passes over the turnout, you will get current flowing between the two buses, which sort of negates the benefit of two separate buses.

I suspect it you get a short when the frog wire is connected, the problem is that you have the common and return wires the wrong way round and should switch the wires going to the A and B terminals.

Jamie, Thanks for your thoughts. Like you, I'm not quite sure about the presence of what the instructions refer to as a Machine Building on the roof. I suspect that this is assumed to house what would be the plant that may operate a lift within the building. However, although the building may be a little larger than some H0 models, in reality it's not that large a building and one that perhaps would only have a central stair well. Leaving it off would leave a hole in the floor, but I presume that could be filled with plasticard. That said, there would probably still be a need to provide access to the roof and the building that you refer to in Leeds has a much less obvious access in one corner. You may be right about omitting the awning above the main door. I'm not sure if the main door is something that would have to be made bigger, but I suppose it would be possible to fit a larger door and a couple of steps to the front if it seemed necessary to raise the base slightly. As for whether it should be a post office, I'm not sure. It just looks like a plain enough building not to look out of place in a UK setting. I may just look at making it local government offices.

The answer to reliability also depends on the sample size. If you get ten completed surveys, it's difficult to draw meaningful conclusions: get ten thousand and it should be easier to draw meaningful conclusions. That said, if questions are flawed, then it doesn't really matter how many people complete the survey.

Personally, I think it is better to correct misinformation, as others may refer to the thread at a later time and will hopefully read all posts before coming to their own conclusion as to the 'correct' information. I think the problem is the way in which some people (and this isn't aimed at you) can be pedantic or patronising when challenging misinformation. However, a bigger problem is that some people just don't seem to be able to accept that they are wrong and that others actually do know more about the topic of discussion that they do. It reminds me of a quote that I read many years ago "those people who think that they know everything, annoy those of us who do"! Unfortunately, when it comes to electrical and electronics, I'll admit that I'm one of those with no more than a basic understanding of the basics: enough to judge who's advice I would trust and who's I would tend to ignore.

Has anyone used the Walthers Cornerstone United States Post Office building in a UK context? From the image on the Gaugemaster website (link below), I don't think it would look out of place in a UK town centre, but I'm interested to know what others think. Does it look big enough to fit with 00, as in my opinion, many model buildings seem too small? http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=WH933-3782&style=&strType=&Mcode=Walthers+Cornerstone+933-3782

The above link no longer seems to display the bundle deals on offer. A search for 'Bundles' does yield 16 packs, but I note that there are no bundled deals for the forthcoming PFA wagons. Are these bundled deals only available for in stock items rather than those that have still to be delivered?

Postage rates from China seem to be surprisingly low - not sure why. Unfortunately, it costs a lot more to send things in the reverse direction. My wife ordered something from AliExpress last year and the seller sent the wrong item. Having contacted the seller, but not having received a reply, she opened a dispute with AliExpress. I'll warn you that their dispute resolution service is worse than useless. We were instructed to send the incorrect item back to the seller using a courier service at our own expense and once we supplied them with the tracking reference they said they would arrange for a refund of the money paid to them. As far as they were concerned, that was fair and was their final decision. We would have a refund and the seller would have the incorrect item back to sell to someone else. The fact that it would have cost us something like £23 to send the item back to China so that they could refund £20 was lost on them, presumably because the postage is so cheap for them. Since we didn't provide them with a tracking number within something like seven days, they simply closed the dispute and marked it as 'resolved'. Thankfully everything turned out okay in the end, because the seller eventually agreed to send the correct item after the dispute was closed. However, that was the seller acknowledging their mistake rather than AliExpress. It's not a website I'd be rushing to use very often.

PH Design produce etched front and rear steps for the Hornby / Bachmann models of the 08 - http://www.phd-design-etchings.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=178&search=class+08. However, if you mean the ladder up to the roof, then I can't see that on their website and I don't know of another supplier.

I assume the Eighteen Millimetre Gauge Society - ie the society for those who model in EM.

Well, I don't need to mix three different rail types, but I think the geometry of the North American #7 Curved turnout is smoother that the geometry of the Streamline Curved turnout. However, I'm designing to a minimum 30" curve on the innermost track, which means that I will need to use one or more of the Streamline curved turnouts. That therefore means that I'd either end up with Code 83 / Code 75 joins or Code 83 / Code 100 joins. I'm aware that Peco make a connector for joining Code 75 and Code 100, but I don't think they make anything to join Code 75 and Code 83 or Code 83 and Code 100. Presumably there isn't significant demand for mixing UK and US outline track ranges, although I know some on here have said they prefer the North American geometry to the Streamline geometry, particularly for crossovers. I was therefore wondering whether anyone had experience of mixing Code 83 with either Code 75 or Code 100. I'm proposing that the scenic portion of the layout will be hand built track, possibly using a mixture of the kits from Colin Craig and C&L, since I'll need both flat bottom and bullhead track work. That will therefore create another set of standards to mix.

I'm looking at using Peco track for the fiddle yard of a continuous run layout. To increase the length of the fiddle yard tracks to the maximum that I can fit in the space available, I plan to use a lot of curved turnouts. The choice for these is basically between the Code 75 / Code 100 curved turnout in the streamline range (which I think is nominally a 5' outer curve and a 2'6" inside curve) and the North American Code 83 #7 curved turnout (which I think is nominally a 5' outer curve but with a 3' inside curve and a shallower crossing angle). My preference would be to use the later where possible, but I will need to use the Code 75 / Code 100 Streamline version in some locations because I am working to a minimum (and frequently used) radius of 2'6". That therefore means that I'll have to use at least two different rail heights. The difference between Code 75 and Code 83 should just be eight thousandths of an inch, whereas the difference between Code 83 and Code 100 should be twice as much (17 thou). However, it appears that the base on the North American Code 83 turnout that I've purchased is slightly thicker than the Streamline Code 75 base, which means that the top of the Code 83 rail seems closer to Code 100 than Code 75. Mixing Code 75 and Code 83 would seem to be more straightforward insofar as I think the rail joiners are the same, but mixing Code 100 and Code 83 seems to give better alignment of the rail heads. I'm therefore wondering what others experience of mixing Codes 75, 83 and 100 have been. Any help would be appreciated.

Well I'm not really an art lover - I prefer models that are as true to scale as possible. Unfortunately, your models make me think of Christmas tree decorations, which I suppose is not necessarily a bad thing. If that's the way you want to model animals, and include them on your railway then that is fine with me. I guess the issue of scaling to fit a 7mm layout, is that you would have to define which dimension you are making the scale dimension and the rest would flow from there. I'd be tempted to have your round body somewhere in the region of 2" (50 mm). You could then argue that the body is about the right length and although it's back would be too high, your style means that the neck is too short and therefore the overall height to the top of its head would be reasonably close to the correct overall height as well. I'm not sure how that fits with a horse drawn vehicle, but unless you use a model designed to be drawn by two horses and you just use one, I think you may end up with a rather strange contraption for the horse to pull.

I'd say that writing a book to impart your knowledge would be a good idea - it means that your knowledge will outlive you. I think the problem is that none of us know everything and there is probably a human tendency to assume that what we do know is more important than what we don't know. Some individuals naturally have a greater desire to learn and expand their knowledge than others. Some will just learn information that is easy to acquire. There are hundreds of books with photographs that show train formations and therefore it is easy to know what a real train looked like at a particular point in time, whether that is a passenger train or a working from a China Clay site. It's therefore easy to try and get that right. Similarly, most of us have visited dozens of railway stations, so they are places that we are familiar with, but few have access to industrial sites. Our knowledge of the operation of such facilities has to be acquired second hand from those who work at such sites or from knowledgeable individuals who have written reference books on the subject for those who are interested. If the knowledge isn't easy to acquire, then it is probably assumed by many to be less important. I'd also say that 'ignorance is bliss' and what we don't know doesn't really bother us. As an example, I was at a model railway exhibition a few years back and looking at an exhibit with a fellow club member during a break from operating our club layout. To me, the little harbour scene at one end of the layout was a nice scenic area. However, to my fellow club member, there was loads of things that were wrong. The mooring ropes were the wrong way round and there weren't enough of them for the size of the boat that was tied up. He is a retired seaman, so knows all about boats from his time in the merchant navy. Since I have no knowledge of the subject, I never noticed the mistakes. Another club member shakes his head at the signalling on some layouts, which seem to have signals randomly placed for scenic effect. Missing trap points, incorrect signals and incorrectly placed signals all spoil the illusion for him, because he is a retired BR Signal Engineer. For me, it's unrealistic civil engineering details, since that's what I studied at university. Embankments slopes that are overly steep, roads that are too narrow and junctions that are way too tight to accommodate the 44 tonne articulated vehicles that are placed as though they serve a yard that would be almost impossible for them to enter, let alone manoeuvre in. I recall one reasonably nice layout where the access to the fiddle yard is hidden by a bridge over the railway that was being demolished. The problem being that what was left of the bridge would have fallen down under the weight of the plant sitting on top and Network Rail would never have approved the Method Statement for the demolition sequence being portrayed - especially not over a live railway. However, to those working in other occupations, such issues probably wouldn't be picked up on. To many the representations of China Clay facilities on the layout are simply there as a 'label' to say 'these are the sidings that I shunt my China Clay wagons into'. 'I have no idea what actually goes on there, but I shunt the wagons into this siding and then take them out again'.

Our club has a fairly extensive collection of magazines and books (including some magazines from the 1920s), but these have largely been donations: books and magazine collections that the club has inherited when former members have passed away or sometimes when someone has been clearing a house and they donate a box of 'railway things' to us rather than sending them to landfill or the local charity shop. The club haven't invested in new books, certainly not during my time in the club. Whilst some of the books are sometimes referred to by some of the members, I wouldn't say that our 'library' was 'well used'. From a personal perspective, I don't find many of the books to be of interest simply because I'm largely interested in the post-privatisation era, which means that I'm not going to find any details of DRS traction in a magazine from the 1920s or in a book about the modern railway that was published in 1985. I'd find our club library more interesting if the contents were better aligned with my own interests, but the problem with the club, is that we have members with a diverse range of interests. Mine lie at the 'modern' end of the spectrum, whilst one of our other members is modelling the Edwardian era. Another member is interested in Swiss and German railways and it wouldn't be a good use of club funds to buy books that may be of interest to just one or two members. The future of our club is a little uncertain at the moment, as our club room was sold in 2018 and we know that our new landlord bought the premises with the intention of redeveloping the site. If we end up moving to smaller premises, then the 'library' may be something that ultimately has to go to landfill (minus the books that some members may actually want to keep).

If your model horses are caricatures of the real thing, does it really matter how accurate they scale? A quick search on google suggests that a real horse is around seven or eight feet in length, so will be around 50 - 55 mm long in 7mm scale and they are around five feet to the withers (shoulder blades), so you want a model that's around 35 mm in height.

You need a feed at the toe end of each turnout, so these should be placed either side of the cross-over between your two circuits. These can be connected directly to two separate controllers or via switches for Cab Control. You then need insulated rail joiners (IRJs) in both rails that form your crossover to keep your two circuits separate. For the outer circuit, if you were to throw the turnout to the crossover position, you would get a short because your frog would change polarity (to black as I have shown it) and this frog therefore needs to be kept separate from the inside rail (which I've shown as red). As such, you need a insulated rail joiner on the inner (frog) rail of your outer circuit. Similarly, you would get a short on the inside circuit without the IRJs in both rails to the right of your top crossover. If the layout is DC, that is all you definitely need (Five IRJs and two pairs of feeds). However, if the turnout on your inner circuit at the bottom of the layout is set to the yard, then all of your inner circuit to the right would be isolated. That's because the polarity of the frog would switch the inner rail to the black feed (thus meaning both rails are connected to the black feed). If you don't want this, then you'd need to add an IRJ to the straight V rail of the yard turnout (as RFS has stated above) and add an additional (red) feed to the inner rail of your inside track.

I'm not familiar with the china clay industry or particularly interested in the details of how they operate, but I agree that many modeller's representations of industrial structures are, in general, too small. As far as I am concerned, a 'shed' that is one metre in length isn't that big and I agree with your sentiment that if you are going to represent an industry, then you need to try and capture the scale of the setting relative to the trains. As has been said above, many structures tower over the trains that serve them. Unfortunately, looking at model kits on the market, few are anywhere like big enough to dominate their surroundings, but I find that's not just a problem with industry. Many buildings including houses, shops and churches seem unrealistically small in my eyes.

That's true, but I'm sure that it will also result in additional paperwork for the exhibition manager. What procedure has he put in place to avoid another exhibitor doing the same thing again? Presumably your club have had invites from other fairly local exhibitions in the past, so you could contact these clubs directly to make the exhibition managers aware that you have a layout that you could make available to them. The alternative would be for you to exhibit your layout on behalf of your club. I know that my own club has offered layouts owned by individual members in the past when we didn't have a suitable layout available. In one instance it was because we were approached late on (someone had had to pull out of attending) and asked if we had a layout that would fit a certain space, about 12 foot long, I think. The club didn't, but one of our members did and was willing to attend. At another fairly local event, we're usually asked if we can bring two layouts, and usually elect to bring one fairly large club layout and a smaller member's layout.