H2O

I've got 2 emails from Hattons advertising models that they (incorrectly) say I've "previously registered an interest in this model or placed a Pre-Order via our website". Have others received similar? If so are these unsolicited emails because of an error, bad advertising decision or a phishing attack. I'm wary of replying to the 'unsubscribe' link in case of a phishing attack. I hope Hattons will just stop this, else I'll have to add them to my junk email list.

Some links to pictures, notes and plans of Laurence Hill and Avon Street at the Bristol Railway Archive: http://bristol-rail.co.uk/wiki/Lawrence_Hill http://bristol-rail.co.uk/wiki/Avon_Street The above website is a boon to anyone looking for pictures of railways in the Bristol area. Another station with a goods link to a factory (and one tiny bay siding) is Keynsham: http://bristol-rail.co.uk/wiki/Keynsham It is interesting to note that the connection to the main line does not appear to have a catch (trap?) point. I remember cycling up the hill into Keynsham and crossing the rails in the road - the crossing was still technically operational but sadly little used when I were a lad.

Bristol appears further up the thread but no locations given. A great location was Laurence Hill. Originally a 4 platform local station, became 2 platform slow lines with 2 fast lines behind. Later c1985 the fast lines taken up (and now the are putting them back!). The station even has a bridge at each end for scenic breaks. All the while, up to about the early 90's, there was a cement terminal behind the station. In addition there was a branch heading away from the throat of the yard to another fan of sidings a mile away near the river Avon, this served another cement terminal (Blue Circle?) and a brewing company receiving molasses. Laurence Hill yard is now a supermarket but there is still(?) 1 siding, on the start of the branch, that served as a local binliner terminal. There are some great pictures at the Bristol railway archive showing shunting on the branch (holding up the local traffic) and action in the yard nearer the station. The branch was lightly laid so had to use an 03 with matching truck but must of been strengthened as 08s propelling trains down the branch are pictured later.

I'd stop using this power box until it is fully checked out. A possible fire or shock is never worth the risk, count yourself very lucky you got away with it this time, you may not be so lucky next time. For overload protection, as a minimum, each transformer would need its own fuse of a suitable rating on the input (mains) side as well as possibly one on the output too (a poly fuse may be suitable on the low voltage side in addition to the one on the mains side). You should NOT have one fuse on the mains side set to the maximum of all the transformers put together as if only one draws too much current on its own it will not blow the single fuse and possibly overheat as a result. I believe exhibition organisers are becoming cautious on allowing 'home made' mains circuits to be used for the very reason you have found. The above does not save you from needing double isolation / adequate earthing which is another thing to be aware of. Without seeing the power box in person I don't think anyone can give you a definitive solution. If in any doubt don't risk it with mains, you may not get a second chance.

I understand that a welded boiler is cheaper to make but they don't last as long before being uneconomic to repair. Rivited boilers can have sections welded in for spot defects or whole plates replaced - at a cost! I not sure if welded boilers can be made with a copper firebox, which is longer lasting and a better conductor of heat. I don't think it is always a straightforward decision on which type to go for when building, reparing or replacing a boiler.

Thanks for the info. My priority in this is; reliable operation, ease of construction and for it to look ok from about 3 feet away. I think, for reliability, standard rail joiners across the same height rail will win out over filing down the bottom of the higher code rail (unless there is a better way than this?) The downside is the packing required for the FastTrack track base and that the code 75 is 10% less high than the 'correct' code 82. The Peco code 75 and 83 are fitted to the same concrete flexi base by Peco so it would appear the 2 rails differ only in height, not width. The FastTrack code 82 fits in the bases with the same force as Peco so I suspect the code 82 and 83 may actually have the same dimensions. Are there other options people have tried with the FastTrack concrete base when connecting to non code 82 track? I realise I'm perhaps using it not as the supplier intended.

I have FastTrack E4FT 106A concrete sleeper base and have available the following flat bottom rail: Peco code 75 & 83 (stripped from concrete flexi) and FastTrack code 82 in loose lengths. I'm connecting this track to Peco OO bullhead points (SLU type). The different types all thread easily into the sleeper base. When laid on a flat surface the higher code (82 & 83) is the same top height as the points but the bottom of the rails isn't, so any joints will need to be fettled. With the code 75 rail joiners should work with no mods and will keep the top of the rails level but the FastTrack sleeper base will need to be raised by 7 or 8 thou. I'm not sure which way to go with what I have, has anyone used any of the above and give some advice? Many thanks for answers for the above.

I'd of thought the new owners (liquidators) are obliged to ensure any remaining publicity is accurate. If you look at the 'official' website you would not know anything had changed, e.g. if you were an investor and wanted to see what the company was up to (and wasn't looking on this website).

If DJ models has gone belly up it does not seem to be reflected in the website djmodels.co.uk where you appear to be able to send money. I'd of thought by now it would say "presently suspended" or "not accepting new interest" while they sort out what may happen to what is left of the business.

Hi Phil, Thanks for your excellent step by step idiot proof(?) guide. As perhaps one of those(!) could I ask if the blade rails can be slit in line with the toe end of the check rails (about 2.5 sleepers away from the nose). This would mean the built in electical connections can be kept, or would that still leave the converted 'electrofrog' point vulnerable to electrical shorts? Many thanks

Perhaps a case of a pungent class 25. Seems odd there are 2,880 or so product lines available - enough to tempt anyone... 12 items per page in the 'shop' with 240 pages indicated, I tested a random selection of the pages and they all seem to have different items on them. Do many local model shops carry this many lines - no wonder they 'went out of business'! Perhaps someone could check back here when they have had a successful purchase experience. PS Website is quite slick though - perhaps other websites take note or hire the guy who set it up :-)

Thanks Martin, very accurate figures. Did you assume a straight rail from the nose of the crossing? Without major surgery (and a very slim vice) I would only be able to straighten the diverging tracks beyond the end of the check rails, so perhaps 15mm away from the nose? Possibly a small change but every little helps! Figures for that mod would be welcome :-) To reduce the track spacing I realise I could just cut the diverging track back on both points, however this does not reduce the 'snake' effect as vehicles go over a crossing from one line to another and (more importantly for this idea) reduce the diverging angle from 12 degrees Peco standard to more like 10 degrees (hopefully) to better match the larger radius slips that are commercially available. The Peco slips are 12 degree to match the points and this leads to a comparatively sharp 24 inch radius curve on the slip which I'd like to avoid.

Hi, Was wondering if the 2 tracks beyond the V on a Peco bullhead OO point could be straightened (perhaps in a vice after the chairs are sliced off). This would reduce the snaking of stock through a cross over and make the 6 foot more prototypical. Questions are; what would the 6 foot then be with 2 such points and what would the crossing angle become? Apart from the above it may make the point more compatible with a larger radii slip. h2o.

ok, now moved to thread with questions about this product.

I'm thinking building a minimum space O gauge layout / diorama using the recent Dapol releases and totting up what I might need to buy. I've used OO in the past so looking for a step up in realism. It will be to model light industrial 50s- 70s bullhead track. Although point work will be sparse (perhaps 3 or 4) I'm reluctant to invest my time in scratch building for a first effort. I have scratch built in OO, mainly to get away from the HO sleeper spacing as then (to my eye) it just about makes the 16.5mm gauge error acceptable (re-wheeling everything to EM was a step too far for me). I've been looking at options for simple O gauge point work for r-t-r stock and this seems to boil down to: RTR Peco streamline - OK price, good look but block of plastic between the rails and 2 eyelets at the toe end spoils it. RTR Peco set track - OK price, tight radius, need to cut part of the curve to generate anything like correct '6 foot', toe end better but still a compromise. Pre-built Markway - OK price but soldered construction means lacking chair detail that is difficult to add? Various plastic chaired kits - Look pricey (2x price of above?), good realism, time needed to build. Not a criticism of any of the manufacturers (they know their business) - but all of the above seem to have a compromise or two! Have I missed another kit or r-t-r point work option? I'm willing to lightly build or modify. I'm leaning toward cutting about the Peco streamline points to remove the plastic box at the toe. Has anyone done this and have a tail to tell? Are there better options for the first time modeller in 7mm? Thanks for answers. Edit for typo.

I'm fairly sure there was a Railway Modeller artical way back written by CJF's son (Nick?) where he cut away some ties to bend Peco points on a Minories style layout. Presumably ok by the Peco management at the time so as close to an authorised mod as you can get? Note sure exactly what version or types of Peco pointwork were chopped.

Just looked up the 'replacement' unijunction transistor but I can only find it on the Farnell website and then only as no longer stocked or no longer manufactured! :-( http://uk.farnell.com/search?st=2n6027 Looking up unijunction at Farnell gives 2n4870 and 2n4871 (as well as the obsolete 2n6027), are either of these suitable replacements? http://uk.farnell.com/search?st=unijunction

Thanks for all the answers on what could go between appropriate classes of DMU driving cars Seems a bit odd those with 2 car versions of DMUs that could have 3 or 4 car formations can't sensibly* obtain those coaches. Probably supply and demand not being in favour of the supplier! * Everyone will have their own answer to what is sensible, however from the answers so far there seems to be no ready to buy item or even a kit to bash an old coach with.

I have several 1st generation DMUs and was wondering what are the options for getting hold of centre cars. New items do not seem to be sold separately(?) so if you get a 2 car unit and want to expand I'm not sure what the next step is. I'm thinking 108 and 101 for now but would be interested in others in time. It looks like second hand or kit build (perhaps coach overlays) is the only way? If so what would be the items to look out for - considering there were many swaps on the real railway between classes over the years and I am ok accepting either an unusual combination or something that looks about right (i.e. modellers licence!). I'd prefer to keep the models being of a similar standard (i.e not using a 60's Triang centre car with a 2000's model).