njee20

10 pairs ordered. Damn my lack of will power.

Sure NinOz's comment was aimed at me. I didn't intend it to be aggressive, I'm just a bit bemused that Robin's (among others) been giving really decent advice, and it's been met with hostility. The OP doesn't really seem to have a solution, nor to quite understand the issue he's having (or at least not be able to eloquently explain it), and yet his post was wonderfully condescending; to paraphrase "don't worry about all this difficult stuff us grown ups are talking about, it's very easy". As a user of both Arduinos and servo point control I'm a very interested observer - Robin's clearly got more to input than I can. I wish the OP luck, but this still appears to be a 'help me' thread masquerading as a 'I have a great idea like nothing you've ever seen' thread, which is just a bit curious. That said - I do indeed get a webpage with buttons I can click on to change from "main" to "branch", can I suggest you change the wording to closed/thrown or something more conventional - points may not just be diverging between a main and a branch route. So that's a start...

You I didn't understand what you meant by: I mean obviously that's good, but it appeared in response to a question around where the locate the motor coaches and how many to have. It is probably the obvious thing to do, but needing 4 decoders (potentially) is a bit of a pain, even using cheap function ones in the ends it's not trivial. Edited for weird formatting!

What do you mean? You’ll potentially compromise light bar fitting (by using the end coaches) or you’ll potentially increase the requirement for decoders (by using the centre coaches)?

Yes, I realise, but surely the fact that no one's done it suggests that it's not "easy"...? I fear that 4 decoders would be a deal breaker (or 3 on a 7-car unit still isn't ideal), so unless you wanted to put the motor coaches in either/both the DTF/DTS I think something needs to be done. But yes, I accept that an 8-pin connector is likely bulky, fragile or both! Personally I'd actually be happy with the DTF/DTS as the powered units, but then my worry is that they're physically quite small, and I don't fancy your chances at getting a chassis and mechanism in one that would happily move itself and 13 trailer coaches. Which brings us back to needing to offer two motorised coaches. That also compromises things with regards to lighting as you have two passenger coaches full of bulky chassis!

I realise that through wiring for pickup is easy enough, but for DCC connectivity...? Like I say, I'm not aware of it having been done on any UK prototype (no idea about continental stuff). Surely if it was easy we'd have seen it before? I'm not conceptually fussed about one motor car or two, but obviously it needs to be able to shift 14 coaches at a reasonable pace.

How is "as long as I could drag it" including a time component to imply you'd operate it any other way? I merely observed you requested prototype fidelity and a feature which seemingly contradicted that. Get over yourself. That does sound good Dave, for me that ticks the boxes. Through wiring to allow a single decoder in N would be a new one AFAIK, but would be good given we're talking 2 powered coaches (aren't we?) and a DTF/DTS with lights, avoiding 4 decoders in a set would be beneficial.

I'd decided against these for various reasons, but they do look good behind the 92...

Would dragged with coach lighting also be unprototypical, if it's being dragged where's the power for the lighting? I definitely don't want coach lighting, by which add-on light bars are the obvious option. Given they add a significant cost they have absolutely got to be an option IMO.

Nothing at all...? What do you even mean by adding WiFi, it’s just a wireless protocol, you still need something to interpret the signals and you can already get hardware and software to use a PC/phone/tablet to control a layout. WiFi can’t power the loco, so you still need to power the track. Battery operated exists, with Bluetooth boards for communication (among others I’m sure), if that’s what you mean?

Can I suggest that until you know what you’re doing you don’t seek to reassure everyone else that your idea is perfect...

The problem is that the head on the Hornby offering is still huge when you're done filing down the arms. That must be a 30+ year old model, I remember it being on the 90 and 91 in the early 90s. The 92 one looks markedly better. What did they fit to the Pendolino? IIRC that looked pretty good, although I presume the base is different with the 'non-tilty bits' (technical term).

Totally agree. Crowdfunding became more popular with the rise of decent internet connections, meaning global marketing was suddenly extremely easy, but to say it came out of the financial crisis is laughable.

Of course those taking the money can be liable, but if a project falters and someone declares bankruptcy then the backers are just one (or many) in a list of creditors. There are obviously various safeguards you can put in place, but there is a risk. Yes, possibly, I don't think the risk comes from established players, more from someone jumping on the band wagon at a point when the buying public are more receptive to it as a funding mechanism. I certainly hope it doesn't happen, and I think there's still a healthy dose of scepticism among customers which means people are wise to any such endeavours.

I, for one, am glad that some manufacturers don't share your woefully narrow minded views. I can't even be bothered to pick that apart. I think the key is to appraise each project as has been said, and consider risk and reward. I don't understand why you'd dismiss all crowdfunded projects out of hand, it's actually pretty insulting what you're saying. There does seem to be an idea that crowdfunding is some panacea that will enable us to produce all sorts of esoteric and whacky prototypes with no risk to the proposers, which I guess to an extent is true. I'm pretty sceptical of any project which morphs into a crowdfunded offering at an advanced stage, as that suggests something is amiss - and that you're on to an unforeseen 'plan B' which worries me conceptually - it's basically a manufacturer saying "I thought I could afford this, but I can't, you're up!". But I have no issue whatsoever with a well thought out project, from a credible source, that seeks crowdfunding. I've been extremely happy with my Revolution items, and am 'in' for a fair few more. I've been slightly 'burned' by a non-railway related crowdfunded project, in that it's now 2 years late and still no real sign of delivery, but hey ho, I went in with my eyes open and was totally happy to lose the money, they were not a proven entity so the risk was higher, offset by a more trivial sum of money. My fear is that a huge failure will come, people will lose money and the bubble will burst. But until then I will continue to enjoy the spoils from things we otherwise wouldn't have, and as brands (ie Revolution) further cement their position in the market and make it work I will very happily continue to back them with the utmost confidence.

Wot he said ^^

Yes, I'd not have a 5-car unless add-on coaches still meant a reasonable rake could be formed fairly cheaply - but surely that adds huge complexity for you, not least for things like packaging and shipping individual coaches? For me a 5-car would be too 'trainsetty', but I'm also not fussed by a full 14, about 10 would do me!

That's certainly a bold statement of intent - going in with 30 variants! That really is worthy of an announcement, unlike some others who preceded you today! If you fancy halving it in size (roughly!) I'd have a load!

I remain interested, so yes, depending on the price of such an option I'd still have potentially have one. I'm not worried by a lot of 'features' that are really more gimicky. Tilt would be nice, as it was so prevalent on the prototype, but not a show-stopper. Certainly not fussed by interior lighting, lifting nose sections, sprung pantographs, myriad variants of running numbers etc. I'm not that worried about extensive interior detailing myself. Seats broadly coloured appropriately (ie just red and blue(?)) would be more than enough. Quite possibly in a minority of one there though!

Does he say that? He's said a private thread could be hosted on Dave's own website rather than here. I don't even know how you'd validate that "only people who'd bought in" could access the thread. Whole level of headache for Andy. The concerns are valid, and from potential (and indeed actual) customers. Don't want to read it? Then don't. Doesn't stop them being worthwhile. I agree it's great the project has progressed to where it has quite so quickly, hence my interest. It's an iconic prototype and is shaping up to be a spectacular model. I don't understand why you'd limit the audience to those who have paid up.

Why? That would be madness. Should we restrict all model threads to those who have actually bought one!? I'm not getting one (it's too big for a start ;-) ), but I remain very interested in the project.

I think you'd struggle to fit a 2km pit exit lane within existing circuits!

I think that looks awful. I like the classic FL livery. Less keen on "Powerhaul".

You've got a spurious full stop at the end of that link. Working link, interesting article, shame the photos couldn't accompany it. Would have been really harsh to penalise him at the end of the GP for being under weight. I imagine he sought a lot of extra marbles at the end! I would guess with so much safety car they had quite a bit of fuel still on board, which would no doubt help.

There are other commercial solutions too - Peco do Smart Switch, which gets bad press and is vastly overpriced IMO. There's also Dave Fenton's Megapoints, which I personally use and rate highly. There are various 'add ons' for setting entire routes in one go, adding DCC compatibility etc. I'd not go back to solenoids any time soon.