Revolution Mike

I have just noticed in Dapol's 2011 catalogue that although they have re-instated the HSTs as book sets, what you will get is 1 x first and 1 x second, rather than a TGS and/or buffet. There is still no news on HST buffets or TGSs...(the catalogue just mentions buffet for ATW, Pretendolino and W&S) When will manufacturers learn that incomplete sets put people off buying??? Given that I am sure Dapol are concerned about the tooling costs for the one offs then why not include them in the sets so they are guaranteed sales at the appropriate cost for the toolings.... Cheers, Mike

Apologies for offending you, but I ain't psychic so I wasn't to know your experience or the conditions you run your trains under

If you are having persistent problems then a few thoughts occur: - what controller are using, what voltage does it put out and what thermal cut out has it got in? - are you running in and oiling as instructions? - is there a particular part of your layout that gives trouble with derailments? If so it is quite easy to get a short that puts a fair amount of current through a loco. Of course, you could just be unlucky! All my Dapol purchases (admittedly diesels and electrics have been very good). Cheers, Mike

Jack Excellent work on the Tiger - any chance that it will be for sale? Cheers, Mike

I can't see a 141 being a goer, but stranger things have been produced! Probably easier to hack kits of a Leyland National on a Dapol 142 chassis (IIRC PD Marsh do a kit). Cheers, Mike

They were on show at Warley, so might be worth checking if there are any photos on the Warley thread. Cheers, Mike

Excellent work. I love the plan and I love the fact you are using real water - that is something I have always thought would be fun.

The decent N gauge pantographs are very welcome indeed! The Farish 87 and 90 are pretty nice models - simple things can be done to improve them (eg attach 90 valances to body) or if you want the ultimate 87 replace the body with one of Mr Taylor's lovely 87 kits. There are things that I would much rather Dapol focussed on rather than more duplication eg EMUs, Pendolino, 92.

Agreed - you wouldn't normally see a scissors in a station like that (particularly in a modern station). Personally I prefer the crossovers, but I would move the LH crossover further left.

Code 55 is also stronger for the reason that chinahand mentions ie part of the rail is embedded in the sleepers.

My strong recommendation is keep it simple for a variety of reasons. You want something you can complete (unless you absolutely know what you want) - pick something too complex and you risk losing enthusiasm part way through. Don't try and stuff in as much track and features (eg shed, coach shed, freightliner depot) as you can unless you want something for play value (perfectly valid choice) rather than a model railway. If you want an idea for small space N layout you could do worse than look at Hedges Hill Cutting (essentially a double track roundy-roundy layout) in a very small board (5ft6 by 2ft) , some pics here: http://www.farnhammrc.org.uk/hedgescutting.htm

I am with Kris on this - you are trying to fit too much into a relatively small space. Try to prioritise what you really want or use tricks like only modelling part of a station ie if you had a hidden fiddle yard then one exit from the fiddle yard could be a bridge and the end of the platforms.

Hello folks There still looks to be something wrong with the front - if you look on the Virgin version (particularly the 1st shot of half of it head on), the yellow front does not appear straight - from the bottom of the nose up it appears to start of straight, but then curve left as the yellow moves up the nose. You can also see on the other shot of the Virgin that the line of the nose does not appear to be parallel with the angle of the cab side window. Cheers Mike

Ah right, I see where you mean. I wonder why the existing quay was considered too shallow? It is very tidal (as is the rest of that coast) but I doubt it is any worse than Kylerhea or Kyleakin. Fantastic idea/plan you have - the planned (and built) railways for Skye have always fascinated me. As an aside, I wouldn't call that Isle Ornsay, but Duisdale!

Neat idea, though I am far from convinced that you have the coastline or topography right! The Quayside should be where you have the turntable with the Isle Ornsay hotel behind it! You can see what I mean on Google Maps: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK247&q=isle+ornsay&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Isle+Ornsay,+Isle+Of+Skye&gl=uk&ei=hBmGTOyNBsK5jAeizJyPCA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q8gEwAA

The Final Frontier - Iron Maiden's new album. Good prog-metal.

While I understand the reasons I still can't help feeling it is such an obvious spoiler on what is otherwise a lovely looking model. Given the already high cost I would much rather pay a bit more to get the right pantograph rather than a generic European panto. It doesn't look *too* bad for a Stone-Faiveley, but there is no way it passes off for anywhere near any of the locos fitted with a Brecknell-Willis. This may sound ultra-picky but I had hoped that we had long gone past such compromises in N. For all Dapol's innovation it is a real shame that they have adopted this compromise. Mike

Haven't Kernow already commissioned a Thumper from Dapol???

Dapol originally said they were going to use Sommerfeldt pantographs (as used by Farish on their 87/90/91) - hopefully they changed their minds. I don't know of a replacement Brecknell-Willis pantograph for N unfortunately. Mike