scottystitch

This is looking really good. Some good modelling and some good ideas too. I considered splitting my N gauge flexi into 60ft panels, but with a 14ft run, it might have been more trouble than it would have been worth, but on this type of project and size I think it's the right thing to do and will make a difference to the overall feel. I've just received Phillips' L&B Measured and Drawn, so will follow this all the way. Coming together nicely. Best Scott.

I just found this topic, very interesting. And what a lovely colour on the locomotives; it really suits them. Are these the same engines as produced by Hattons? I'm not 'up' on industrial railways... Best Scott.

Thanks for this, I was never aware of this train/colour scheme combination either - Inverness Stag to boot! Also, for those that missed it, the third coach in the first picture appears to be in NSE colours as well.

Indeed it resembles the Westie rather than a Scottish Terrier, the pedigree of which has long hair skirts, not unlike a tram engine, a pronounced beard, and a 'long face'... True Westies, of course, are always white and have a more rotund looking face. The logo, to me is definitely a Westie. Best Scott.

David, I have the same publication for June 1964. If that would be of interest to you I'd be happy to share the relevant Queen Street diagrams. I'm not sure how much the timetable changed in that five years. I also have a train marshalling document for September 1964 that might be helpful, if you don't already have it. For context, I'm modelling the Perth area 1962-64. Best Scott.

I seem to remember that the original didn't set the heather on fire, but it was a semi-enjoyable romp. Quite short single player from memory and the multiplayer wasn't worthy of the name game... I didn't hold on to it for long, which probably says it all. Scott

I'm assuming this is a follow-on (sequel?) to Homefront that was out at the start of the decade? Or is it more a remake? Best Scott.

I think it might be just the centre section of the Dundee Tay Bridge? I've definitely passed another train whilst on the bridge in the past, but it wasn't in the centre portion.

It was looked at very recently, with money supposedly allocated (some would use the word "promised"), but that has fallen by the wayside, as Network rail and Transport Scotland believe that there is better value for money in enhancements elsewhere. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/angus-mearns/792212/snp-should-go-back-to-the-drawing-board-on-usan-rail-promise/ https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/1506290/transport-chiefs-accused-of-betraying-north-east-by-turning-back-on-rail-improvement-pledge/ For interest, a similar situation exists at Perth, on the bridge that carries the Perth & Dundee railway over the Tay. In Fact, it is single track from Barnhill on the east bank all the way to Perth Station. Best Scott.

Blimey! What a cracking model, it looks so realistic! Brilliant. best Scott.

Indeed, it seems I was a bit out with 12" for a 21. So not such a big tweek needed on the release. I suppose, if it is a squeeze, all you need is the bogie to clear the points of the switch blades

Going by your description of your boards, each square is 12", and so the only thing I would say is that your locomotive release won't be long enough to release anything other than the smallest tank engine, by the looks of things. I model in N, but I'm guessing in OO you'd need approaching 12" to release a 21, or thereabouts? If that is the case, I'd be looking to move the crossover to the left by about another 6 inches. Best Scott.

Agreed. I took four of the first batch and intending to take four of the second batch, whenever they appear.

Apologies, Nick, I thought you meant for a "watching trains trundle by" layout slow speed was not relevant, but I understand what you mean now, you're talking about quantifying the speed of the model. And I agree. Best Scott

The old M7 mechanism is exactly the kind of thing that gives N Gauge a bad name. It has two speeds. Stop and Gone. I exaggerate, of course, but it's not that far from the truth and it's impossible to decelerate to a stop in anything approaching a prototypical manner. That said, I understand Dapol are retooling and updating the mechanism. Best Scott

As far as the quality of models go, I'm very satisfied with the detail level we are at with rolling stock, In particular, Farish coaches (and some of Dapol's for that matter, their Gresley coaches still look very good) and Revolution's wagons. as far as locomotives go, again I can't say I see a need for much more detail. Dapol's 68, 50 and Farish's 40, for instance look fantastic. How much more can we do? Refinement of certain areas perhaps might be a good avenue to go down (more use of etches for grills and bogie sides for instance). Personally, things like lights and sound have less appeal, so I'd rather the investment went into the mechanisms. Whilst I completely see where Nick is coming from, in terms of his layout and his use of his models, I still think that good low speed movement and control is a must. I have a couple of Rapido's GMD-1s and you can watch them creep at speed step 1 (of 128), and very smoothly at that. This is useful not just for shunting but for more general acceleration and deceleration on approach to stations, signals, sidings, etc. , coupling up to stock more authentically and operating the railway as the real one is. I think for what we get, pricing is not an issue. For what we pay, I think we do get a very very good product (in most cases, and in my experience). And, I'd happily pay Rapido prices for Rapido-like mechanisms. As for Peco, altering the sleeper spacing to match that of the UK prototype would go a long way to improving it's look. As it stands it's a compromise to everyone, wherever in the world they are modelling. At least with UK spacing it's correct for at least one area. Everywhere else already compromises (and buys it) now, so where's the difference? As for their turnouts, i'd have much preferred the'd tried to correct the switch blades to match something approaching prototype than gone down the unifrog route. Switchblades without that hinge and without the increased depth, again would go a long way to improve the look and, I daresay, operation. Maybe a couple more, longer turnouts in the range would help too, particularly for modern image layouts. I can't say that I've encountered too many problems with Code 55 track, that some in the thread have reported. The biggest issue I find is that the turnout basis can be bowed. But I've never had a problem assembling and laying it. Best Scott.

To my own mind, there are two main things that are key to maintaining/improving/promoting British N-Gauge's standing. Good quality (well made and well operated) layouts, both home-based and exhibition-based, and good supply of stock. The former is largely down to us, the latter is largely down to the manufacturer/supplier (we can't buy what isn't on the shelf). Best Scott.

Thank you for the heads-up. I've just relieved them of 8 BSKs (only 7 to go) and an SLSTP (3 to go). Very best Scott

I'm not qualified to elaborate further than it looks like the reverse of the archimedes screw principal, and comes back to Newton and his reactions. It's not magic, it's not supernatural (in the sense we consider supernatural things), it's pure physics. Best Scott

In fairness, the video maker provided no scientific evidence to support his hypothesis/conspiracy theory. Superimposing out of scale fuel truck photos on the photo of an a380 wing is as far removed from scientific evaluation as one can get. And his air-is-accelerated-rearwards-providing-thrust-therefore-no-fuel-is-used conclusion defies the simplest law of physic of "you get nothing for nothing". And for the avoidance of doubt, the "debunking" and "side-splitting reactions" were certainly not aimed at you. You asked for opinions on the video, and some of us have provided them. The video and the conclusions drawn in them are is nonsense. It may be well intentioned, but it is nonsense all the same, I'm afraid. EDIT: @jonny777 Having thought about this further, you are right that we perhaps treated your post unfairly, notwithstanding the above. You came to us seeking an opinion on the video, from a position of being unsure. We should in fact have welcomed the fact that you were looking for answers, rather than blindly believing what was being suggested. You at least questioned it and I genuinely actually thank you for that. Apologies.

The gas turbine engine fitted to an A380 is, conceptually, no different to the Merlin engine (and propeller) fitted to a Hurricane. Both work by taking a mass of air and accelerating it rearwards. Simplistically, if we use something to accelerate air rearwards, the thing that you used to do that must be propelled in the opposite direction, Newton teaches us that (as does experimentation to verify he wasn't just making it up). In the case of the Hurricane, we have a propeller that spins. The propeller is shaped to draw air from in front of it and accelerate it rearwards. Relatively speaking, it's a large mass of air and it is accelerated slowly. If the air is accelerated rearwards, the propeller must be accelerated forwards (thrust). The propeller is connected (indirectly) to the aeroplane, so it pulls the aeroplane with it. Our Hurricane therefore moves forward through the air. But how do we get the propeller to spin? We use a Merlin engine. How much thrust does the Merlin contribute? None. Zero. zilch. All the Merlin does is suck squeeze bang and blow to ensure that a shaft rotates which ensures our propeller (attached to the shaft) spins. The propeller contributes 100% of the thrust. So 100% of that thrust comes from air being compressed and ejected rearwards. That being the case, is It reasonable to state that the aeroplane uses no fuel, on the basis that it’s the air being accelerated that provides the thrust? Well no, because if the propeller stops spinning at the required rate, the air doesn’t get compressed and accelerated rearwards sufficiently, and we end up with no useable thrust. So to keep the propeller spinning, the Merlin needs to keep suck squeeze bang blow-ing…which uses fuel. Now if we take the engines fitted to a modern airliner, instead of a crude propeller, we have a Hi Tec, large diameter, multi-multi bladed fan. The fan is driven on a shaft. But this time, instead of the shaft being driven by a reciprocating old Merlin/car-type engine, it’s driven by a turbine. The turbine spins, which means the fan at the front spins. But how do we get the turbine to spin? Well, we get some fuel, we mix it with some air in a combustion chamber and we light it. We end up with a very hot flame. Because we are now heating the fuel to a high temperature (by this point it is vaporised rather than liquid) the gases produced by combustion want to expand (the same way they want to in a reciprocating engine). We engineer the combustion chamber so that the expanding gases can only travel (expand) in one direction, i.e. towards the turbine. The expanding gases impinge on or react with the blades of the turbine, forcing them to turn on the shaft. The shaft spins, ergo the big fan at the front spins. The fan then acts similarly to our Hurricane propeller, accelerating a mass of air rearwards. Not all of the energy from the combustion chamber is absorbed by the turbine, some of it continues to accelerate rearwards and out of the exhaust, providing some thrust. But, on modern engines the vast majority of thrust comes from the front fan. But, and here is the crunch, like the Merlin/propeller combination, if at any time we shut off the fuel supply to the combustion chamber, the turbine will not be forced to spin, which means the front fan will not spin (sufficiently – it will windmill to an extent) and therefore our engine will not provide any useful thrust. It is utterly and completely wrong to say that a gas turbine engine can provide any useful thrust without a fuel supply. As for the fuel capacity, this should illustrate things nicely. Although, surprisingly, unlike most wide bodies, there is no wing box fuel tank on the A380, but the B747 wing box tank I can stand up in.

The video, and the ideas expressed in it, show a complete lack of understanding of what actually happens inside a gas turbine. The line "is using very little to no fuel at all" alone is simply laughable. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the construction of an aircraft airframe and how fuel is stored. Best Scott (Aeronautical Engineer)

The name's Obvious, Captain Obvious.

You cannot be serious...!

Interesting that. 083 is listed as working a Condor along with a EE Type 1 (D8117) and on another occasion with a Peak (D72). Best Scott.