Memphis32

C11305 - amazing how clean those windows are - can't make out whether there's even a trace of where the wipers have been! We'd point out the omission if we saw a weathered model like that...

I don't recall a mention of infallibility. I will accept a fine for my own stupidity when a lapse results in a camera catching me.

Personally I'd rather the cameras were hidden. If you've a problem with inappropriate speed limits, write to your MP or get a petition signed. Assuming you know better and going whatever speed you feel is right ought to get you a fine whether you know there's a camera there or not!!

Between '89 and '92, that was my local train :-)

Both routes curving is the only way a Peco crossing can be bent.

I assume that's between inner rails, so just short of 45mm centres?

What sort of spacing is possible without a kink at the join?

Dragging this one back to keep relevant info together! Can Tillig Elite points be hacked to reduce track spacing? i.e. do they have a small straight bit on the end of the diverging line like Peco points do? I'm planning a continental layout and would like to keep to 4m track centres, which is about 46mm in 3.5mm. Looking at their EW5 points on SCARM, reducing the track spacing from 59mm to 46mm shortens a crossover by 90mm, which helps somewhat!!

I wouldn't photoshop mine, if I had a layout to photograph - I just don't have those skills or the patience! Don't kick traffic cones - I wish someone had told me they had concrete in the base...

Is there any mileage in (nominally) N-gauge lamps (loco and wall-mounted)?

The seeps you're using are the ones with switches in, but they're being used for frog polarities, aren't they? I think the best solution to this would be to use relays for both interlocking and frog switching, and a little bit of cunning for LEDs, and not use those boards, as they're not really necessary once you've got the components to the rest! They'll be fine for the rest of your points.

I'm still working on your led thing, but now thinking about this too. Can you clarify a few things please? What is supposed to happen when you try setting a crossover when the other one is set? Do all four motors fire to reset the other to normal, or does nothing happen unless you reset the crossover first? Also, can you tell me what model of detector board you're using to drive the LEDs?

Slightly painful suggestion, but it's what I'd do if I was troubleshooting it - rip out all the wiring, then reintroduce it one motor at a time, testing each motor as the wiring is installed. Then do the same with track power sections.

I was not attacking those views, merely defending those "thwackers" whose own interests lie in a slightly different area...

It's not something I would ever do, but surely that is no more extreme than worrying about the size and type of lamps or the accuracy of train formations?

On the subject of easier scenery, would it be possible to use the polygon feature, but in the vertical plane, to create formers, much as we would with wood when modelling scenery, and have the "ground" follow the formers? It would give a good idea of how an open baseboard plan might look.

The brass screws those rails were soldered to - they should have been tinned first to give a stronger joint.

The confusing bit for me is that my understanding (so far) is that those gauges are DOGA fine (16.5mm gauge, 1mm flangeways), Andy wants RtR stock with minimal adjustment, and Martin W (who seems to know what he's talking about) says "The huge disadvantage of this standard is that it requires the wheels to have a wider than normal back-to-back dimension. All wheels using DOGA Fine track have to be adjusted to the DOGA Fine back-to-back gauge." (From his "A Comparison of OO standards") It's not surprising the discussion goes on and on...

The reason for checking would be so Cav can set the templot settings, giving you the right templates for check and wing rails.

I don't think I've seen a definitive answer to what the gauge is that Jason sent. Just lots of "if it's come from X then it must be Y". Any chance of getting some measurements from it so we know what standard the slip was made to?

A non-coupled couple, that is...

Doesn't that have a couple too many wheels?

Any progress on the planning?

That is a thing of beauty!!

It looks from that picture like the code 55 track would need shimming to get the railhead at the same height as the code 80 points.