ejstubbs

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).

Just to be clear, it's not my layout. I merely posted the picture (and a link to the layout owner's description of it) in response to the OP's assertion that an 11ft x 11ft room "would make a OO gauge continuous run layout difficult to build". Note again that Crewlisle only has 8ft6" x 7ft6". Whether or not trainset curves are actually a problem depends on what it is the OP wants to achieve. As I said in my post, the OP would be well advised to sit down and think about that before ruling any options in or out. It's fairly clear that the OP likes to watch the trains go by, which suggests that a compromise might be needed between that and having more realistic-looking curves. Or else switch to 2mm. Ultimately, you can't fight geometry (which is largely why the Greeks invented it in the first place).

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/133688-cm-models-carlisle/&do=findComment&comment=3257986

Some might disagree. Have a look at this layout, which crops up quite regularly in threads of this nature on RMWeb. It fits in an 8ft6"x7ft6" bedroom: Plenty of people would be very grateful for 11ftx11ft for a 4mm layout. You can fit a lot in to such a space if that's what you want. A useful first step is to decide what it is you want to get out of the layout. Some people want somewhere they can exercise their extensive collection of locos & stock, others prioritise realistic operations over numbers of trains, others again enjoy making a convincing scenic location with a railway running through it. Ultimately, unless you are one of the super-rich then space & money will always be constraints - and unless you're retired, time is likely to place even greater limits on what you can do. It's a good idea, when embarking on a new project of this (or indeed any) kind to have a clear of idea of what you definitely want to achieve vs what you are prepared to do without, or at least treat as a lower priority. These requirements always need to be tempered by what is realistically achievable in terms of time & money. It's also useful to set yourself some early objectives so that you can feel that you are making progress - and maybe also use the milestone as an opportunity to take time to review and reflect on what you've achieved so far and what you plan to do next; you may find that your priorities have changed during the time spent working towards your initial objectives. In summary: better to make a considered plan at the outset than to launch in to something that's not realistically achievable or that you won't actually find very satisfying when it's finished. (But don't fall in to the trap of incessant planning with no action!)

Or yellow? For example: extruded (*not* expanded) foam insulation board from Jewsons. Thinnest they do is 20mm, though, so too thick for the OP. (Is it just me or does half an inch sound rather deep for a track bed - unless we're talking about a larger scale than OO, or something other than normal running lines? I'm planning to use 3mm thick trackbed on my next layout which I'm expecting should give a fairly prototypical ballast profile. For 7mm that would be 5-6mm, more like ¼" than ½".)

It wasn't only apparent on printing, it was changed in the pdf.

Having recently completed the process of obtaining probate on my late father's estate, I would say my experience of that part of the process was that it can be mind-numbingly frustrating. In my case, I opted to fill in the IHT forms on my computer, rather than by hand which is always an error-prone exercise for me. I discovered that the HMRC's pdf forms have some utterly bizarre bugs in them, such as changing the contents of the deceased's date of death field (including changing the day of the month to the 77th!) after you'd filled it in - only spotted when I printed it out to post it to HMRC - or blanking out the contents of fields I'd already filled in when I entered data in another wholly unrelated field. I ended up having to resort to leaving the affected fields blank and "inserting" the data as comment text. What got me about this was that there must be highly-paid professionals doing this sort of thing every day: do none of them ever get as fed up as I did, and report such idiocies to HMRC so that they get fixed? I just wanted to get it over and done with the once, but for people whose job it is to do this stuff, surely it must drive them up the wall? Or do they all do it by hand?

Tax avoidance is, as you say, legal (though it sometimes pushes at the boundaries of what was intended when the relevant law was passed). Anyone who has an ISA is taking advantage of a form of tax avoidance. Tax evasion is illegal, and basically involves dishonest declarations of the financial status of the individual or corporation - or, in other words, fraud (OED: "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain").

Your layout reminds me somewhat of Kyle of Lochalsh. A number of features strike a chord: Long, narrow layout (admittedly at KoL this was because the station was built partly on the pier); Single island platform accessed from one end (at KoL this is via a ramp from the overbridge on the landward end of the site); Goods/wharf facilities on both sides of the passenger facilities. KoL did have a loco shed, and a 60ft turntable, but they were back up the line a bit, beyond two road overbridges. The turntable is now at Aviemore on the Strathspey Railway.

Why do you need a Deed of Variation? Once you have inherited the money, isn't it up to you to do with as you choose?

Following the last update, my Windows 10 virtual machine decided that its copy of Windows wasn't activated. Not that it made much of a fuss about it, mind: just a subtle watermark in the bottom right corner of the desktop. Since I normally run the application that I use Windows for full screen, I didn't notice it for a few days. Dug out my Windows 7 DVD and re-entered the product code from that and Windows was happy again. Not sure what would have happened if I had failed to notice it for a longer time. Just another of the flaky little annoyances that Microsoft manages to inject into our lives I guess...

That's the service sheet. It's even catalogued on the Hornby web site under "Service Sheets". Mr Henderson has already made it clear that it's the maintenance sheet that he needs. This kind of thing (catalogued separately on the main downloads page under "Hornby Locomotive Maintenance Sheets"), but for DoG rather than a Duchess. It looks like what Mr Henderson needs is for someone who has one to scan the maintenance sheet and PM it him.

Always up for a challenge, I thought I'd see if I can find it. I can't. It would be most helpful if those who claim to be able to locate it could post the link to the actual document on the Hornby web site. (In most browsers you can copy the URL for the linked document from the context menu ie by right-clicking on the link.)