cctransuk

That's as maybe - but I doubt that there'd be a long queue to take on Adrian's health issues !! A little compassion and cutting some tolerant slack wouldn't go amiss . Can any of us be certain that such circumstances wouldn't have the same effect on us ? Regards, John Isherwood.

Your standards of acceptability are, rightly, your own. However, (running issues apart), if the two highlighted 'defects' are rejection material as far as you are concerned, I'm afraid that you are going to have an awful lot of rejects in the future. Regards, John Isherwood.

I'm not sure that's universally the case - or even desirable. Detail - when it's got to the point where it is proving difficult for manufacturers to deliver their products unbroken in transit, one might argue that the search for ever more detail has already gone a little too far. Technology - well, that depends on whether you want realistic locos that pull realistic trains, or you like tweaking decoders, speakers and other electonic gadgetry in a vain hope of making a 1:76 scale model sound like the sheer mass and power of the 1:1 prototype. It is possible to scale performance, but not presence. Regards, John Isherwood.

Chris, My apologies if I misinterpreted some of your comments - not my usual practice. Regards, John Isherwood.

Any of the 1960s restored British Transport Museum locos, produced in the condition that they ran on special workings, would sell in good numbers. We've had 3440, 1000, No.1, (and perhaps others that I've forgotten); let's have the rest !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Exactly the method that I used to produce the circular section rods for an FR England 'PRINCE' for OO9 - though I have to confess that I used copper wire and disguised the fact by tinning them. Regards, John Isherwood.

Well - I can just make out what I take to be the brakevan at the end of the train. On that basis, I'd say that twenty CEMFLOs in that rake is as close as we'll get. Regards, John Isherwood.

That is, of course, your decision. But when it comes down to actually sourcing an acceptable 14XX, I would submit that a cast whitemetal kit is not a good starting point - especially if we are referring to the K's kit which must have been amongst the first of its breed, back in the 1950s / 60s. What is unacceptable as regards running quality must surely have an equivalent in what is unacceptable in fidelity to prototype appearance? Regards, John Isherwood.

.... and, more significantly, the Blue Circle PALVANS from which the chassis originated. Regards, John Isherwood.

Then why not build an etched chassis kit for the body that you clearly find acceptable? Regards, John Isherwood.

Not at all !!! You asked Mike what to use for crankpin rod retainers; he told you; you ignored his advice and asked for a source of washers; I provided a source but advised against washers and gave reasons; you made an incorrect statement re lathes; Adam gave advice re cutting tube; you referred to TW using washers - at which point I gained the impression that responders to your enquiry were wasting their time, as you seemed quite determined to ignore us and persist with washers. I conceded that some modellers - myself included - have to do it the hard way to learn anything. Nonetheless, I and other members have attempted to assist you - but all you seem interested in is your own original idea and in finding another reason to call me rude and insulting. You just can't help some people !! Regards, John Isherwood.

They must be very tight-fitting washers, then. However, if you are one of those modellers who has to learn by personal experience of the wrong way to do something, by all means go ahead. Just make sure that there are no sensitive ears in the vicinity. I WAS a modeller who had to learn by personal experience of the wrong way to do something, but I now know that slivers of tube cut with a Stanley knife are the stressless way to do it. Bear in mind that the slice of tube doesn't have to be too short - it can be filed back with the crankpin after soldering. Regards, John Isherwood.

Despite that - please don't try to solder washers as rod retainers; you'll end up using rude words !! Adam's right - use a Stanley knife to cut the tube; just roll the tube under the blade until you've cut through it. Put a length of 1.0mm. rod into the tube whilst doing so; it will stop the tube collapsing and ensure that the cut sliver doesn't disappear into the carpet. Regards, John Isherwood.

A Google / Ebay search produced :- https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/M0-6-M0-8-M1-0-M1-2-M1-4-M1-6-Miniature-Brass-Washers-x20-Pocher-Upgrade/141476696041?var=440627081547&hash=item20f0ab0fe9%3Ag%3ANCcAAOxymiVQ-I1h&_sacat=0&_nkw=M1+brass+washer&_from=R40&rt=nc In my experience though, washers tend to be too loose a fit to serve as retaining washers on crankpins, if they have to be soldered. The suggestion of a slice of 1.0mm. ID tube is by far the best idea; the fit is just right and the risk of errant solder is much diminished. Regards, John isherwood.

I suspect that it was only the 'sheltered' elite of Rugby, and other private-sector schools, who would NOT have understood the dubious connotations of the offending verb - it was certainly in the widest juvenile circulation when I was a lad. Regards, John Isherwood.

It'd be a great seller, though ! If you look at how many BLUE CIRCLE model hoppers will be / have been available in recent years, the PALVAN must be about the last of the British Railways era BC stock not covered already. They were added to rakes of PRESFLOs, PRESTWINs and CEMFLOs, as well as running in rakes themselves. I hope that common sense will prevail !! Regards, John Isherwood.

If these etches are to be available for sale - may I express an interest in purchasing? A couple of suggestions :- a] any thoughts of producing a scale length jib for the HD Cowans Sheldon steam breakdown crane; b] any thoughts of producing a scale length jib for the Airfix / Dapol Booth Rodley diesel PW crane? Both of these models have carriages and / or crane bodies (crabs) that are / can easily be adapted to scale; it's the under-scale length jibs that spoil the proportions of the models. I would have thought that, in the hands of a proficient digital designer, the jibs would be a natural for 3D printing. Regards, John Isherwood.

I thought that the Ratio MACAW is a ex-TVR design - though the bogies may well be the wrong ones. Does any GWR guru have the definitive answer? Regards, John Isherwood.

More than likely - but I use CorelDRAW 7, because that was what we used at work when I retired. Say no more! Regards, John Isherwood.

Even the Almighty has his moments !! .... (or did he use hormone rooting powder)? Regards, John Isherwood.

The drawing above is a .jpg image of a CorelDRAW .cdr file, and is scaled 1:1 for 4mm. scale track - in fact, I used the Peco Code 75 downloadable templates for the layout design. Using CorelDRAW, I can add isolating gaps and track feeds on an individual rail basis, by zooming into the drawing. The main problem with a 1:1 CoredDRAW drawing of this size, using relatively high res. .jpg images of the Peco point templates, has produce a file approaching 1G in size. CorelDraw crashes frequently as a consequence, and I think that I am going to have to scale the drawing down before I can do much more work on it !!! Regards, John Isherwood.

You clearly haven't read enough of my posts then - plenty of comments received there. Regards, John Isherwood.

That is really helpful - thank you. I had a stab last evening at inserting isolating gaps and feeds on the basis of my understanding of the wiring of Unifrog points, and what you have stated seems to be in accord with my assumptions. The prototype location is, of course, Evercreech Junction (S&DJR) - but with the actual junction moved (conveniently) off-stage! The bank of marshalling sidings in the scenic section will be worked by a yard shunter - for which there is a convenient short head-shunt spur for stabling. Reception and despatch of freight trains will be from the headshunt loop at the neck of the bank of sidings, and I do not foresee the need to isolate individual sidings. I will fit a SPDT microswitch to each Unifrog point to switch the frog polarity. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/5X-Ultra-Mini-Roller-Lever-Actuator-Microswitch-SPDT-Sub-Miniature-Micro-Switch/253653306378?epid=1443558719&hash=item3b0eea4c0a:g:LLkAAOSw8SpbC-UA These microswitches are really tiny, but they seem to have a more than adequate rating - I have bought enough to have approximately 40% surplus against failures. Their size means that they can be easily fixed below the sleepers, adjacent to and actuated by the tie-bar, so my initial intention of using the manual 'flick-over' operation will be easy to achieve. I will, however, make provision in the baseboards for subsequently adding solenoid or servo actuation at a later date. Thanks again to all who have offered advice - I'm a bit out of my comfort zone here. Now to read up on cab-control !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Martin, Thanks for your continuing input. So - i] and iii] can be ignored. ii] The frog polarity switching can, theoretically at least, be switched by the SPDT microswitches that I am considering - though you would strongly recommend the use of relays. iv] If the rails beyond the two diverging tracks are isolated from the points and fed separately via section switches, presumably no additional point switching is needed? As an illustration of the intended use of Peco bullhead points, below is my intended trackplan. The scenic area will be Peco Code 75 bullhead track; the hidden section will be Peco Code 75 or Code 100 flat-bottomed track. Will the same polarity switching as proposed for use with the bullhead track also be applicable to the Code 75 / Code 100 flat-bottomed trackwork? Regards, John Isherwood.

Martin, Thank you for your comments - much appreciated. I was really looking for a solution that can be a self-contained physical addition to the point itself, mechanically switched by the action of flicking the point over. That's why microswitches attracted me; I am confident that I can devise a mechanical installation / actuating arrangement that can be mass-produced and rigidly attached to the underside of the sleepers. Clearly, the microswitches that I am considering can be made to switch the polarity of the frog. However, can the same microswitch switch the polarity of the switch rails, such that the there is not the possibility of the toe end of a switch rail being at the opposite polarity to the adjacent stock rail? (Thus allowing the free toe end to touch the back of a wheel flange and cause a short circuit)? Furthermore, I ideally need the microswitch to determine which of the two diverging roads is live - ie. for the point position to activate the track to which it is switched; (though this function could be ascribed to separate section switches if it would significantly simplify the point polarity switching). In summary, I wish to arrange matters such that merely changing the position of the point manually will :- i] not rely on switch rail contact for electrical continuity; ii] switch the polarity of the frog; iii] prevent short circuit between stock and adjacent switch rail due to contact between adjacent switch rail and wheel / flange back iv] ideally, but not essentially, switch power between the two diverging roads according to the point postion. I strongly suspect that I will need something more complex that a SPDT switch, but something similar with perhaps more switched poles would be ideal. Further comment will be very welcome. Regards, John Isherwood.