ejstubbs

MACOS is not based on the Linux kernel. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_timeline.en.svg That message is actually a little too simple. In strict terms, what you own when you purchase a print copy of a magazine is the medium - the paper and ink. You do not own the content: that is protected by copyright. Similarly, when you buy a DVD or CD, what you own is the plastic disc, the library case and the paper and ink carrying the liner notes. The actual music or film is protected by copyright. In respect of the content what you are granted in exchange for your money is a licence to use it for specific purposes. Remember those messages that come up on DVDs saying that they cannot be used for public performances? That's part of the terms under which the you are granted a licence to watch the film on the disc. Yes, copyright laws allow a limited amount of "fair use" - such as your example of photocopying a few pages for reference when doing some modelling, and the growing acceptance that people have the right to back up and re-format digital content for their own use. But that is still covered by an end user licence. Just as it is illegal to burn and distribute copies of a commercial CD, you are not allowed to photocopy a whole magazine multiple times and give those copies away free, let alone for money. That may seem an unlikely thing for people to do as it would be time-consuming and quite costly. But digital content is much easier and cheaper to copy than paper. Even DVD copy protection is easy to circumvent: you just need to link the decryption library that allows you to watch the DVD in to a program that copies the content off the disc to a separate storage medium. Not easy to do on a DVD player, but trivially simple on a computer.

Or just remove the incorrectly positioned NEM pocket and fit a gear box mounted coupler (eg one of the 140 series) instead. It does strike me as being a bit of a strange solution to the NEM pocket not complying with the standard, to butcher a coupler which does comply with the standard to make it fit. The NEM pocket is never going be any use with a NEM compliant coupler; the only couplers that will work with it are the stepped Bachmann ones, or ones cobbled together by the user. So the easy interchangeability that is one of the prime benefits of the NEM standard is completely lost. To my mind the non-compliant NEM pocket is waste of time and would be better done away with.

Kadee do offer an "under-the-track" delayed uncoupling magnet, part #308. The instructions state that the magnet "can be concealed under ties up to 1/16" thick" which seems to be just about OK for code 100. However, if 70E has installed the #321 or #322 "between the rails" magnets beneath the track then no, that won't work. If that's what has happened then unfortunately I've no idea whether neodymiums could be deployed to fix the problem without removing the buried Kadee magnet. If it were me I think I'd chalk it up as a learning experience, take the track up and do it again properly. I note from the instructions for the #308 magnet that it requires a steel 'intensifier plate' to be installed beneath it. If 70E has installed the correct magnet, but without the 'intensifier plate', then that could explain the problem. Again, the proper fix would be to lift the track and re-do. If it's not working even though everything has been done right then...it's probably still easier to lift the track and fix it properly rather than trying to fudge it by introducing yet more magnets into the equation.

Ah yes, there are also those variants. Provided that the actual speed limit part of the sign (ie the round bit with the red border) is compliant with the size & colour requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) then it is permitted to use a yellow backing board if it is felt necessary in order to make the sign more conspicuous. It is sometimes said that they are used in known accident black spots but this isn't strictly the case; the official guidance is: "If the accident record suggests that drivers are failing to notice the warning, or seeing it too late to take the necessary action, the next larger size can be used. Conspicuity can also be increased by the use of yellow backing boards". Which may appear to amount to the same thing, but the point is that the yellow border is not there to convey a message such as warning of a hazardous stretch of road - it's just to make the speed limit sign more likely to be seen. AFAIK the backing board must be rectangular, although some people argue that that makes it difficult to know what type of sign it might be from its shape if, for example, it is obscured by snow (and I have read reports of round backing boards being used in some places, though my understanding is that this potentially makes the speed limit unenforceable). The backing board must not have a black border around it (unlike the advanced warning of a lower mandatory speed limit sign in my post #5768) as this would then make the yellow background itself an integral part of the sign, rather than just being a sighting board, and would thus create an unauthorised sign which cannot be enforced. As before, my inclination is to err on the side of caution and comply with what the signs are most likely to be intended to mean, even if in they aren't expressing that meaning according to the most pedantic interpretation of the regulations. Unfortunately, on very rare occasions poorly designed signage really can be so confusing as to be difficult to interpret while driving - in such cases, if the worst comes to the worst it's back to basics: proceed with caution and be prepared to stop. Better that than: "That speed limit sign doesn't look legal to me, I'm going to plough on regardless".

If you mean ones like this: that's warning you that a change to the mandatory speed limit is coming up. You often see them on motorways approaching roadworks. It's telling you that you ought to start thinking about slowing down safely. AFAIK the actual start of the speed limit must be marked with a standalone speed limit sign in the normal "signs giving orders" format (circular sign, black numerals on a white background with a red border). Being a warning sign rather giving an order, the yellow sign cannot be "enforced" per se - but if you choose to ignore it and plough in to the back of slow moving traffic ahead then things may not go well for you in the subsequent police investigation in to the incident... (My understanding is that the overall black border is key: without it you do have a sign informing you of the start of an enforceable 50mph speed limit, and also some words apparently trying to alert you to something, but certainly not the start of the speed limit, ¾ mile ahead. Unless the sign is completely misleading, this kind of nit-picking should only really be of interest to people trying to get off speeding charges IMO.) You also sometimes see 'countdown' signs like this: after the yellow warning signs, or instead of them, on the approach to the start of the changed limit. In Scotland the round speed limit part of the sign is allowed to have a red border, but isn't enforceable (assuming that the overall black border is present). In England the round speed limit part of the sign is supposed to have a black border, but not all LAs get that right. Either way, the actual start point of the speed limit is where it says it is on the relevant traffic restriction order, not where some misguided idiot has managed to place what looks like an enforceable speed limit sign. Again, all grist to the mill for people trying to get out of a speeding charge. You also see signs like this: usually on the approach to sharp bends or other single-point hazards where people may need to reminded that they should moderate their speed (they often appear after a spate of crashes at a particular bend). Again, not being in the "signs giving orders" format they are purely advisory and cannot of themselves be enforced*, but failure to take due notice of one could be used as evidence of driving that falls below the standard that would be expected blah blah blah My advice would always be: if you're not sure, err on the side of caution. (Or, as my motorcycle instructor used to drum in to us: "If in doubt, bottle out!") * It's actually nigh on impossible to enforce a speed limit on a single bend anyway. Radar and laser speed detectors need a straight road to get a reading that falls within their calibration certificate. Average speed cameras like SPECS need a few hundred metres between each camera to get a usable reading. And I think it pretty unlikely that a police driver with a calibrated speedo would be inclined to follow another driver through a bend at a dangerous speed.

If it's just advisory then it doesn't "apply" at all, at any time. It's just asking people to behave a bit more responsibly in the vicinity of a school. There's no way that it can actually be enforced. A true speed limit sign must be in the "giving orders" format of a round sign with a red circular border: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs. That one with the green border doesn't indicate any kind of enforceable limit. See the response to this FoI request to Bath and North-East Somerset Council. The key statement is: "I can advise that the signs referred to have no legal standing". See also this report of a speed limit sign which did not meet the legal standards being unenforceable: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25024899. I suspect a lily-livered local authority which either can't be bothered to get the necessary TROs in place for a proper 20 limit, or which is trying to be seen to be "doing something" to protect children at the school whilst avoiding accusations of joining the "war on the motorist" (and we all know, don't we, that children are the elite shock troops at the forefront of this conflict, causing endless pain and suffering to innocent, oppressed motorists). Another possibility is that the school itself - possibly an academy not under LA control - has erected the signs because the LA declined to do anything. However it's come about, it's BS of the first order.

As that will stop them from working correctly why not just use the cheaper Roco/Hornby couplers? You immobilise the swivel at the base of the coupler head, not the knuckle. The knuckle part of the coupling still works, so they will still couple up and uncouple, but the coupler head itself does not move on the end of its shank. This goes some way to actuating the close coupling mechanism on the coaches, but isn't as effective at that job as the rigid Hornby/Roco couplers. OTOH the Hornby/Roco couplers aren't much use for hands-free uncoupling (I'm not aware of anyone who has admitted to using them in this way), especially if you're using uncoupling magnets for all your Kadee-fitted stock. Although they will couple up automatically, to get decent close coupling they often need a bit of a 'hard shunt'. Hence people tend to use Roco/Hornby within a fixed rake, and Kadees at the ends, possibly with the coupler heads glued up to get a bit better close coupling with the loco if that's what they seek.

That's the same one I posted in my post #636. Just sayin' The correct length is going to depend to an extent on the tightest radius curves that you have on your layout. Someone using 3ft or more as a minimum radius is more likely to be able to get away with shorter couplers than someone using Setrack 2nd radius, which is nearer 18". The controlling factor for coupler length is avoiding buffer lock when the stock negotiates curves, including/especially reverse curves eg crossovers. A secondary consideration for length is the types of stock you want to couple together. For example, long wheelbase non-bogie freight stock may need a longer coupler because its end throw on curves will be longer than ordinary wagons. Take another look at the table on the Kadee web page that both I and Butler Henderson have linked to. That explains which different length and height options (which are the things you need to vary to make the coupler work) are available in which series. Within each series there will be a common gear box, centering spring arrangement etc; if you still can't decide then go for the 140 series since they are without doubt the easiest to fit (not having a separate centering spring), they offer the full range of length and height options, and two alternative gear boxes for mounting locations where the standard 140 series #242 gear box won't quite fit. In my experience eBay isn't a great place to buy Kadees, by the way. I've found cheaper suppliers in the UK by Googling, and from pointers provided by other Kadee users on RMWeb. In the past I've bought both 140 series and NEM couplers from DC Kits. They also have a link to a useful-looking "dummies' guide" type introduction to the use of Kadee couplers. Gaugemaster usually list the full Kadee range but don't always have every item immediately in stock; other retailers tend to undercut them on the more commonly used Kadee items but they can be useful for one-offs or less frequently required items. In my fleet I have #18, #19 and #20 NEM couplers, and examples of every variant of the 140 series except the #143, #144 and #145. I keep a stock of every length of the NEM coupler, and every variant of the 140 series that I have used to date, plus every variant of the 140 series gear box. With that lot to hand I can be pretty confident of being able to Kadee-ise anything that comes my way (and I can always source the other 140 series sizes if I turn out to need them). The amount of each size that I keep in stock varies according to how many I've used (so, for example, I still have four of the #17 couplers because I haven't yet found a vehicle in my fleet that they will work with on my layout).

In Down the Bright Stream (sequel to The Little Grey Men by BB, who also wrote The Forest of Boland Light Railway - there you go, I knew I could get a railway reference in somehow!) there is a jackdaw called Kack-Jack. I always thought it sounded much more onomatopoeic than the common name for them. We usually have a few fledgling jackdaws in our garden each summer. They are terribly engaging creatures. My wife posted a video on YouTube a few years back of one eating from her hand (and at one point trying to eat her hand!) If only they could be persuaded not to drop sticks down the chimney when they grow up and want to start a family...but then I suppose we wouldn't get the fledglings later in the year.

The ones I've seen that only apply at certain times (usually at the start and end of the school day) have been of the "20mph when the lights are flashing" type. It's certainly generally the case that if a restriction only applies (or does not apply) at specific times or between specific dates then that will be indicated on an accompanying subsidiary sign, eg like this no left turn which only applies during morning rush hour: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8992525,-3.2041245,3a,75y,340.41h,93.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sysAg35DgHOUOprykcxnhEg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656 (the fact that this particular sign utterly fails to achieve its intended effect, ie to stop the side road being used as a rat run, is largely because no enforcement activity is ever carried out - the same as a great many speed limit signs, in fact). The rules about how speed limits must be signposted are set nationally. A significant minority of drivers seem to find compliance with 20mph limits very difficult. Edinburgh has turned most of its suburban roads that aren't primary routes into 20mph limits, and it's very noticeable how often I get drivers zooming up behind me and then following aggressively close in 20mph zones. Mind you, the main difference between 20mph and 30mph limits in that respect is probably only the number of times it happens - it's just that more people were OK with/used to sticking within 30mph limits. Edinburgh chose not to install speed bumps across the new 20mph limits, although it did have quite a few old installations in existing, individual 20mph streets which have not been removed. I found that it was usually perfectly possible to traverse most of them at or close to 20mph (which is I suppose something of a testament to the teams that installed them). Another behaviour that is very noticeable, though, is 20mph tailgaters who slow to a crawl to tip-toe over a speed bump at walking pace, and then charge up to my rear bumper again before falling behind as soon as the next speed bump approaches.

Wrens to seem to have a tendency to nest in some pretty bizarre places. When I was a kid a wren decided to build its nest in an old teapot or kettle that had been half-buried in a heap of builder's rubbish in our back garden. Luckily my parents spotted it and managed to postpone the removal of the junk until the chicks had fledged. I daren't show the OP's picture to my missus. She absolutely adores wrens: I know that she'd be extremely jealous, and would start wittering on about how she'd love to have a wren come and live in the house with us, and we could make it a little nest for it in the utility room, and give it delicious little tid-bits to eat and, and... Basically she'd go in to excited-ten-year-old mode, and would be most put out at any suggestion from me that perhaps wrens prefer to live outdoors and find food for themselves. This would probably continue sporadically all evening, and be revived at random moments for the next few days. (She also has a tendency, when we're out for a walk, to collar innocent passers-by and try to interest them in whatever it is that we've just spotted - treecreepers, dippers, choughs, red squirrels, basically anything slightly more interesting than a sparrow or a mallard. Fortunately everyone she's done this to so far has been at least tolerant of her attempts to encourage them to share her enthusiasm.) P.S. My wife does not read RMWeb.

I tend to agree with njee20 that it's useful to include some kind of brief summary or comment when posting a link. I wouldn't go so far as to make it obligatory, though. Some forums (such as railforums.co.uk) have a rule that you must post the text of the linked article, or at least the relevant part of it, as quoted text in your post - and the moderators enforce it. I personally think that this goes a little too far the other way. At least on RMWeb clicking on an external link automatically opens a new tab, so there's much less risk of losing track of the discussion in the thread itself. I will admit to finding Andy's "clickbait" posting style on this thread a little unnecessary - but I recognise that it's just the way he does it, and I do usually find the links he posts worth following up. So in the grander scheme of things I am happy to let it pass. I could, if pressed and/or sufficiently drunk, go in to endless detail about the annoying/exasperating posting habits or styles of a few other RMWeb users. But (a) this is supposed to be a friendly forum, (b) as with Andy P, those posters usually do have useful advice or information to impart, and © some people probably find my ramblings just as irritating. So at the end of the day I much prefer to live and let live.

Being aware of the regulations which govern the use of your vehicle it is supposed to be part of the responsibility one accepts in return for the privilege of being allowed to drive a large, polluting wheeled vehicle which represents a significant hazard to more vulnerable road users. The alternative, should you not wish to accept that responsibility, is to walk, cycle, or use public transport (or ride a horse, I suppose, though the peripheral infrastructure to support that as a general mode of transport is largely non-existent these days). Driving is not a right. That's why the law requires you to be licensed in order to do it. Far too many drivers seem to lose sight of this fact not long after being awarded said license. And IMO far too few have the privilege suspended or revoked when they fail adequately to fulfil their side of the bargain ie to exercise the privilege granted to them in a responsible manner, with due consideration and respect for other road users, and in compliance with the law. Having driven in the US a fair few times, I would disagree with that. The rules relating to the four-way stop - which even most Americans seem to have difficulty articulating - would be one example of something which just doesn't exist over here. (The nearest equivalent would probably be an unmarked crossroads. The Highway Code says that at such junctions no-one has priority - so the only way to get through them is to proceed with caution and be prepared to stop.) Lane discipline is also very different in the US cf the UK and Europe. The fact that you find driving in the US straightforward is, I suspect, likely simply due to your familiarity with it.

There isn't a list, it's a matter of trial and error. AFAIK that's the same as any other third-party coupling supplier. I'd say that even goes for standardising on one manufacturer's version of the TLC across a collection of stock from various different manufacturers. If you dig around on online forums you might find someone who has fitted Kadees to a particular loco you have in mind, and documented which ones they used and how. There are four different lengths of HO scale NEM couplings (#17, #18, #19 and #20 - with possibly a few more obscure variations for specific stock types). The NEM couplings don't come in different heights because the standard for the NEM pocket includes its height above the rail head. If your NEM coupling ends up so low that it fouls the trackwork, or so high that it wouldn't couple with other stock then then NEM pocket on that vehicle is almost certainly incorrectly located. The best course of action in that case, in my opinion, is to remove the NEM pocket and fit one of the types of Kadee coupler which uses a Kadee gear box. There are dozens of Kadee coupler types and gear boxes: have a look at the product matrix on Kadee's web site or on page HO - 1.0 in their catalogue. The 20, 30 and 140 series couplers are the ones with the widest range of combinations of length and coupler height (short/medium/long and underset/centreset/overset). I prefer the 140 series 'whisker' couplers because the spring is built-in to the coupler, which avoids the fiddle and faff of fitting one separately in the gear box. In my case I took the decision to make the change to all my stock after a brief experiment with some expendable wagons. Having made the decision it was then a case (for stock not fitted with NEM pockets) of removing the TLCs from each vehicle in turn, and using ingenuity plus a bit of trial and error to devise a way to fit a Kadee gear box and a Kadee coupler of the right length and head height. There is no one single way to do it, though certain approaches can be applicable across a number of different vehicles. The Kadee height gauge is very useful for ensuring that the coupler head is at the right height. For the fore and aft positioning I use Kadee's own guidance as a starting point, then adjust as necessary based on initial running trials round my tightest radius curves and reverse curve pointwork. Double-sided tape is handy for initial running trials until you are ready to mount the gear box more permanently in place using glue or a small machine screw. If you scroll back up through this thread you will likely find a fair few examples that people have posted of the ways that they have fitted Kadees to non-NEM fitted stock. Here, purely as an example, is a post of mine regarding old coach bogies. The one approach that I am not generally in favour of, although some seem happy with it, is to screw or glue NEM or #5 Kadee couplers directly to the vehicle chassis. This approach means that the coupler head cannot pivot around the attachment point to the chassis - the gear box, in the case of the series couplers, or the 'fishtail' or other flexible mount in the case of NEM pockets. Thus, any flex in the coupling between two vehicles has to come from the swivel at the base of the coupler head (in the case of the NEM couplings) or, worst case, from the knuckle itself. It does work, but it's not the way the couplers are designed to be used and it basically offends my delicate engineering sensibilities. That said, I have used it on two of my pieces of stock. It was early days in my Kadee 'journey' and I was being lazy. Too lazy to go back and do it properly, so far at any rate...

The overwhelming majority of us are going to fall in to the fifth category on that list.

I think the pastiche of the Fry's 5 Boys advert is really rather clever. It does work best, though, if you're aware of C&M's previous adverts; it wouldn't be quite so effective if all they'd ever used before had been pictures of trains like everyone else.

Not mentioned in your post or the thread you link to is The Model Train Shop. I have used them a couple of times in the recent past and found them perfectly satisfactory. The product descriptions are a trifle cursory and the photos not particular revealing but they do respond promptly to queries submitted through the form on their web site. The Bachmann "Branchline products by item number" listing is quite useful for working how recent a particular model is. Unfortunately Bachmann stopped updating it after the 2011 edition (on the plus side, I guess anything not on the list will be newer than that!) and it's not even available through their new web site so you have to get it from the Internet Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20171112221118/http://www.Bachmann.co.uk/pdfs/branchline_products_by_item_no_rev11.pdf

It is more than a little ironic that a post complaining about poor grammar should open with a sentence which contains at least two* awkward errors: "If it was...it is forgivable" and "English spoken contributors". * I stopped counting at that point.

I wouldn't fit the Roco/Hornby rigid couplers to an item of stock that doesn't actually have a close coupling mechanism, if that's what you were thinking of. That's not what they're designed for, and the rigid nature of the link that it creates could well be problematic when negotiating curves or more complex track formations. As 34theletterbetweenB&D suggests, the rigid couplers should be reserved for use within fixed or semi-fixed rakes, with Kadees/TLCs on the outer ends of the rake and fitted to locos. Although the Roco/Hornby rigid couplers can supposedly couple automatically, and uncouple over a ramp, I strongly suspect that at least the latter function is rarely if ever used. Some people deliberately remove the loops from the undersides of those couplers on the grounds that they serve no useful purpose on their layout, and the couplers look better without them. See for example this thread started by Dunsignalling (who has also posted useful information on this thread).

The other day I was queued in the right turn lane at some lights when an ambulance with blues & twos going approached from behind. Both the cars at the front of their respective queues went through the red light, for no readily apparent reason since there were three or four vehicles queued behind both. The car in the left turn lane was a driving school car, I think being driven by a learner with the instructor next to them - if so then I can only assume that the instructor advised the learner to break the law in that way, which is hardly a good lesson to be giving a novice. The ambulance driver managed just fine without anyone's 'help', carefully going down the outside of both queues, going the wrong side of the Keep Left sign on the bollard in the throat of the junction, then cutting left across the front of both queues.. If the driver at the front of the queue in the right turn lane had just stayed put then they wouldn't have had to skedaddle out of the ambulance's way as it executed its impromptu left turn manoeuvre. I didn't see what happened to the driver of the driving school car who turned left against the red light but I can only presume that they found themselves in the way of the ambulance just after the junction, making their manoeuvre not only illegal but actually unhelpful. The scariest thing I've seen on Edinburgh's roads in recent months was a pedestrian who decided it was just fine to start crossing in front of a speeding fire engine with blue lights and all sorts of sirens and electronic wailing devices going like the clappers. Looked like a real brown trouser moment for the driver of the fire engine. Why do people get themselves in such a tither about letting emergency vehicles go about their business? EDIT: Ambuchannel 112 is an interesting channel on YouTube where an ambulance driver in the Netherlands posts dashcam video of some of his callouts. The videos include occasional captions (in English) explaining why some other drivers' actions were unhelpful, highlighting those who did the right thing, providing general useful advice about how to respond in the presence of emergency vehicles, and even guidance about providing first aid (such as CPR, and the FAST combination of symptoms by which to recognise a possible stroke). He's also not afraid to show occasions when he has made a mistake - such as this one - or when a callout has gone a bit awry due to misleading or conflicting information being passed to the ambulance crew.

The Keen Systems CCUs that I linked to in my post #9 are another possible option, and cost less than the Symoba offering (although if you want to use NEM couplings rather than the ones that are supplied with the CCUs then you have to factor in the cost of your preferred rigid NEM couplers as well). I've no idea how easy or otherwise it might be to fit the Keen CCUs to Hornby Mk4s. The same goes for the Symoba ones, come to that. I'm not convinced of the wisdom of trying to fit CCUs to locomotives. It should be possible to achieve closer coupling to older locomotives by judicious use of whichever more modern coupling (Bachmann short TLC, Kadee or whatever) you choose to standardise on.

This is not completely accurate. Kadee (please note the correct spelling - nobody ever refers to "Hornbee" or "Backman" on this forum, why does Keith & Dale's choice of name for their company cause people such problems?) do make a version of their couplings to fit in NEM pockets, and these are available in four lengths. However, they also a offer a large range of couplings which mount to stock via Kadee's proprietary gear boxes, which come in a number of different versions. My personal preference is for the "whisker couplers" since they avoid the separate spring within the gear box and offer a short and narrow variant of the gear box for this type, as well as the standard version, which gives more options when fitting the couplers to stock designed around the all-too-ubiquitous TLC. With nine coupler length & height variants and three different gear boxes, I have yet to find a coach, wagon or loco which can't be converted to Kadees using a suitable combination of gear box and coupler, though the work required on the chassis of a vehicle can vary from practically nothing to rather delicate and complex surgery. As steve1 observed, the key thing with Kadees is get the height right - and they make a useful gauge for checking this. As you point out, though, height and position on the vehicle is equally as critical for NEM pockets (and no-one makes a gauge for that AFAIK - you're reliant on a good ruler and Mk 1 eyeball). As for the OP's actual question, he appears to be looking for closer coupling. NEM pockets aren't necessarily the answer to that, although they do make it easier to swap couplings to try to achieve the desired effect. There is also, of course, the option of looking at close coupling systems such as that offered by Keen Systems. I'm not aware of the Bachmann NEM mount offerings that steve1 refers to but I do know that Parkside Dundas used to sell mounting blocks which accepted the 'fishtail' wedge on the rear of Bachmann NEM pockets, which could then be used to mount ones NEM coupler of choice. Unfortunately the only way to get the Bachmann fishtail NEM pockets seems to be to buy Bachmann couplings (supply of which seems to be somewhat sporadic). Fine if you're happy to standardise on Bachmann small TLCs, but you get a lot of redundant TLCs left over otherwise. I'm also unsure of what's happened to the Parkside Dundas product now that part of their business has gone to Peco (EDIT: they're listed in Peco's Parkside Models catalogue, part number PA34). My own view is that choice of couplings is more important than choice of mount. For reliability of operation in coupling, staying coupled when you want them to, uncoupling where you want them to, and being compatible with the tightest curves on your layout it is IMO best to standardise on one manufacturer's couplings that do the job for you, and mount them to your stock in a way that is appropriate for each stock item (Bachmann, as an example, do screw-on versions of their small TLCs as well as NEM ones). The one exception to this would be couplings for close-coupling mechanisms, which work much better with a suitable rigid coupler such as the Hornby/Roco style, or the Bachmann pipe couplings (choice of couplings for this purpose is generally predicated on the assumption that the coaching stock concerned will generally be used in fixed rakes, at least on the scenic area of the layout). In this case standardisation is less important - and the NEM pocket does seem to offer a useful way to mix'n'match the options available so as to get the stock to couple as close as possible while still being able to be hauled and propelled through model railway radius curves (even Keen Systems CCUs are NEM compatible.)

We have a winner! Many thanks for jogging my memory. Cracking little layout, Andy - obviously made an impression on me; I hope you'll agree that my description caught enough of the key features to make it recognisable. If only its actual name had managed to lodge in my mind, I'd have been able to find it fairly easily. I shall now write it down (somewhere - it doesn't matter where, just writing it down is what makes it stick) so I can look it up again when I feel the need for a bit of inspiration.

I'm trying (but so far failing) to track down a thread on RMWeb which featured a layout with a sort-of-scottish/highland feel. IIRC it was a small (single platform - possibly with a bay) terminus, with a loading dock on the spur running off the loco release crossover. My recollection is that it had a goods shed near the station throat which I think had to be shunted from the other direction - or something like that, I'm sure there was some kind of jiggery-pokery involved in operating that part of the layout. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

I'm not sure about ParcelForce but these days, when our postie leaves us a card, there's a URL which you can use to reschedule the delivery for a time when you know someone will be in. I use it for most of my missed deliveries and it works well - if a little slowly, since the earliest you can book a redelivery is two working days after the attempted delivery. But then, I don't tend to mail order stuff that I need in a tearing hurry (or to put it another way: if I have to mail order stuff because no locals shops carry it then I adjust my plans for use of the item accordingly).