njee20

You're quite correct Mike, was more meaning that I was intending to 'cut my teeth' on a nice simple point, as I've never so much soldered a single PCB sleeper in my life, before jumping into an HV 47.75, which I think is about 50cm long in N! I'm unsure if things like the longer switch rails associated with larger turnouts makes things far more complex, or not. If so then it'd probably be madness to start with something like that, rather than a nice simple BLT using short BH points. You also get much more gentle frog angles, 1:12+ for which cutting guides don't seem to be as readily available. Although making one doesn't look overly onerous. If Wayne did modern FB points then he'd probably have a customer in me, to be honest even if he did something as a halfway house using concrete bearers even if not half a metre long would be a significant improvement over Peco.

Like many of us I'm perpetually planning my next layout, mainly as I have so little time to actually do anything on my present layout, I can vicariously enjoy modelling through planning! I've always been tempted by handbuilt track, the main thing that appeals to me is the improved point geometry and layout. I model present day UK in N gauge, and have a fairly large space to play with on this hypothetical layout. 2FS is never going to happen, I have far too much stock, and I buy and sell too much to want to re-wheel everything. I've played with Templot fairly extensively, which is wonderfully satisfying, and got to a point (no pun intended) where I could print out a template and have a go. Given that what I'd ultimately want would be nice long (300mm+) turnouts built to N gauge standards, either using code 55 rail to match Peco's "code 55" plain track or code 40 and using Easitrac flex my question is whether that's madness for an entry into handbuilding? I'd almost certainly have a go at a 'normal' sized turnout first (ie just a FB B7 or something) to practice techniques, but is there anything inherently harder about building to N gauge standards, as opposed to EM/P4/2FS, and are larger points harder than smaller ones, or vice versa? Being as it's a modern layout I'd not be doing anything more complex than a standard crossover; no slips, diamonds, scissors, three way points etc. I'm leaning towards code 55 with Peco track, as (at risk of committing heresy) the appeal to me is not in the finer rail section and correct sleeper spacing so much as the improved geometry.

Andermatt, nice weathering on the track, but those 'train set' curves look silly, and it never looks right when people don't put the wires up:

Everything left out all the time here. In a largely insulated, but unheated garage, doesn’t get below freezing, but does get quite nippy. Wonder about a light dust sheet, but sure I’d knock loads of stuff off putting in on/off, probably better just leaving it be and giving it a clean!

Why must they? Companies do strive for good customer satisfaction, but a dominant market player like eBay, whose business model is volume based, doesn’t really care that much. It’s certainly a surprising outcome. I don’t understand how eBay we’re able to shut down a PayPal claim though - didn’t they have to sell off PayPal? For that very reason.

Awesome, didn't realise they had speakers fitted, that does simplify things.

Slightly random question... Will the chassis be common between different liveries? I'm twitching on a GBRF one (as they're now in charge of the silver bullet trains it seems rude not to), and would quite like a sound one, but would probably rather put the sound chassis in one of the EWS liveried locos. Do you know if a quick body swap is likely to be possible, or are there differences/livery elements on the chassis which will preclude that?

Obviously it depends on your exact area of interest, but n isn’t that much more limited. Also regardless of what they say, when you stand back, you can’t overlook the fact that OO all looks a bit crammed in

You won't really get any objective answers, because it's a wholly personal decision. For me... N all day long. That's a nice space for N, you can have a really good sized layout depicting (if you're so inclined) a busy main line, running scale length trains, and a good bit of landscape to lose the railway into. For OO it'll all be a lot more cramped, and you won't get as much in without it being dominated by track. That's completely moot, however, if you want a OO gauge branchline terminus. I'm going to hazard a guess that Paul is going to suggest that if you're older that OO is more suitable, but I don't really subscribe to that. The limit is how small you can make things, and in OO that limit is the same. So detail which is moulded in N is separate in OO. I don't really think N is inherently more fiddly.

Yes, that was definitely the early bird price. It may have been slightly more, but not a huge step up.

I have a phone or tablet welded to my hand virtually all of the time, being a young Millennial and that, yet I really wanted something with physical buttons for DCC, for the simple reason that it's easier to use without looking at the screen. Likewise I find my car stereo annyoing, being touch screen, as I have to look at it to do most things (those that can't be done via the physical buttons on the steering wheel at least). It's not a fear of, or reticence toward, touch screen devices, just what I personally think is best suited to the purpose. I use JMRI with my SmartControl and have WiThrottle, so it's an option should I want additional control, but I certainly like the tactility of real buttons and knobs. Matron.

Has it? Weren’t they the same price as the ‘normal’ crowdfunded ones? I genuinely can’t remember! Given it was fixed priced, I’d suggest it’s not an indicator of future value at all, although it seems there’s demand!

Judging by shots of the CabControl and the Mobile Control 2 (which is exactly the same hardware, just ‘tethered’ to an ECoS) I’d say virtually nothing! The UI looks identical. Only thing that I’ve found (very slightly) inconvenient is that you can’t choose icons for the locos as you can with an ECoS (and have them display on a MC2). But no idea if the CabControl will be different, I’d hazard a guess it’ll work like the Smart Control rather than the ECoS.

If you can reach both long edges why have a well at all?

Piko SmartControl? Impressed with mine.

You’d almost certainly twist my arm into purchasing another rake if you did re-run them!

Agreed, I’m toying with the idea of Rugby for a new layout if we move house and I’ve got space, sadly it’ll be nowhere near the standard of Dallam or Euston, and it’ll be the post-2008 layout

I was going to post those, my only caveat is that inherently lots of the photos may be in stations where the contact wire may be lower due to station roofs etc(?).

Which, to refer back to Ben's photograph on the previous page means the head of the pantograph needs to be basically at the height of the 'hinge' between the upper and lower arms, which is really pretty low!

I think prototypical pantograph heights are far lower than many people set them to anyway - perhaps because sprung items like those on the 350 recalibrate our expectation to expect a near obtuse angle between the arms. If you look at photos of most Brecknell-Willis pantographs, including on Pendolinos, the angle is really quite acute, probably 30 degrees or so. Using the Dapol masts as a guide seems reasonable, certainly they looked the part on HF at Warley.

Yep, agreed, quite a nice feature to have someone hanging out of the door of a loco parked in a depot or something, but utterly pointless on something like this. Likewise (for me) DCC opening doors too. It's all just gimmicks.

But again... why? So you can poke it and say “look, it opens!”. You’re not going to be running with the door open, and if it’s sprung then it’ll only stay open with some sort of grossly overscale finger involvement.

That would of course be breathtakingly pedantic though, because every manufacturer of anything ever has products they have discontinued!

If they call it a new tooling on the strength of filling ten 0.5mm holes in the pantograph well I’d say that’s verging on false advertising... I wondered if they’ve sorted electrical connectivity between coaches, which would eradicate the need for 3 decoders. But then the TPE 350 is a new livery, not new tooling. Yes, I know. Hence saying We were ‘conditioned’ to low prices, not that prices have risen since they released it. Thank you for the patronising lesson though, and a gold star for getting in a ‘my era’s better than your’s and they should done more diesel transition models because they’re amazing’ comment

158s good, 450 is cool, interested to see the pricing given the 00 one is rather pricey, and we’ve become conditioned to 350s being very cheap. I can’t see a £300 450 being popular. Also intrigued they’re saying it’s a new tooling, surely it’s just a new livery and the removal of the pantograph.