ejstubbs

That's Streamline, not Setrack - the SL prefix to the part number gives it away. Peco don't publish templates for Setrack in OO, probably because it's supposed to be a sort of industry standard. I can't find the O gauge Setrack points on the Peco web site, which seems a bit odd. The templates for the ST-U750 and ST-U751 do seem to be on the Tower Models web site. Not idea why they aren't on Peco's: http://www.tower-models.com/towermodels/ogauge/peco/track/ST-U750%20plan%20sheet.pdf http://www.tower-models.com/towermodels/ogauge/peco/track/ST-U751%20plan%20sheet.pdf

If they don't know then ask them to look at the aerial: the colour of the end plug indicate the aerial group. See http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/reception_guide. Group C/D is green, group T is white. I note that on this page they say: "Aerial changes are most likely to be needed where TV services are broadcast in the aerial group C/D, which uses the 700MHz frequency band. However, most homes using C/D aerials should continue to receive reliable signals after clearance." (My emphasis.) I think it's pretty clear that that was unlikely to be the case for Oxford, where every multiplex except COM6 used a UHF channel in the 700MHz band. Given that, I would have thought that someone, somewhere should have put a special effort in to informing the local populace of the issues they might face.

Actually, having checked what changed on the Oxford transmitter, I'll admit that it does look like an aerial issue could be at the root of the OP's problems. On 23rd May the muxes were re-allocated from the UHF channel range that requires a group C/D aerial (channels 48-68) to a range that requires a group T aerial (channels 21-60). The multiplexes that the OP reports problems with used the following UHF channels before, and then after, that changeover: BBCA (most BBC channels) - was channel 53+, now channel 41 D3&4 (ITV and Channel 4) - was channel 60-, now channel 44 Arqiva A (Dave & Pick) - was channel 59-. now channel 37 That means that all of the above multiplexes are 'out of group' for a group C/D aerial. However, a grouped aerial doesn't cut off out-of-group UHF channels completely, it just has significantly poorer gain for out-of-group channels the further away you get from the boundaries of the group. Hence (probably) why mux D3&4, which is only 4 channels outside the C/D group, is receivable through the communal aerial by using a signal amplifier, but the others are not. BBCA being receivable on an indoor aerial is almost certainly because the indoor aerial is wideband ie it covers all the UHF channels (currently) allocated to terrestrial TV (AFAIK all indoor aerials are wideband, you can't get grouped ones). In that case the signal amplifier would be required simply because the signal received on the indoor aerial would be weaker because it is, er...indoors - as well as being smaller, and generally never likely to perform as well as a rooftop aerial. As for ARQA, as well as being well out-of-group for the communal aerial, AFAICS it is broadcast at half the power that the BBCA and D3&4 multiplexes are broadcast at, hence (probably) why it cannot even be received on the indoor aerial. My conclusion based purely on the symptoms reported by the OP would therefore be that the communal aerial is now in the wrong group for the retuned Oxford transmitter. Whoever is responsible for the communal aerial may need to swap it for a group T aerial. (Ironically it would probably be the BBCB multiplex, that carries the HD channels, that would be received best on a group C/D aerial post the Oxford retune, since it's ended up only one channel outside the C/D group!) However, that still leaves a bit of a mystery as to why the OP's neighbours don't have the same problem. It rather suggests that they might actually be using a different aerial to the OP (maybe there are in fact two 'communal' aerials in the same property?) Or maybe they are using satellite, or broadband TV! Digital TV, like digital radio, tends to be either there or not (sometimes referred to as the "digital cliff"). It's not like analogue TV whereby the picture might be fuzzy, or have ghosting, but at least it was a picture...

You would expect that to affect the other users of the communal aerial as well, though. The OP says they don't have issues.

Also mentioned by Steve Pearce in post #51. Tim may have said it clearly, but IMO it was far from clear what that meant - hence the ensuing confusion. It depends what you mean by "Beeching", really - I reckon it could be interpreted in at least three ways: After the first Beeching report was published - so basically anything from 1963 onwards (possibly excluding stuff that had been in plan prior to the report's publication); As a result of the recommendations made in the Beeching report - bearing in mind (a) that not everything recommended in the report was carried out, or carried out to the extent recommended eg some lines recommended for closure were singled instead, or otherwise 'rationalised' without being closed, and (b) some other changes might have been carried out at the same time that were not recommended in the report (I don't know any examples of this but I can believe it happened - over 400 stations were already being considered for closure at the time the report was written); After all the recommendations in the Beeching report had been acted upon, whether or not they were carried out fully or even at all. Even that criterion could be difficult to pin down clearly: the S&C was recommended to be made freight only in the report, but Government consent for that was only finally refused in 1989! His subsequent clarification does suggest that interpretation 2 is what he was after.

Ah, good spot!

Not so much driving standards as choice of 'cherished' registration number standards: last weekend I saw a blue Volvo carrying the registration 61GOT. Could have been a personal plate for someone whose initials are GOT and who recently reached the age of 61, or maybe some kind of celebration of acquisitiveness. However, the font used made the 6 look very much like a lower case letter b. I prefer to think that the possibility of mis-reading the plate was not intended by the car's owner, but I can't help wondering - in a horrified sort of way - whether some misguided soul might regarda it as some kind of badge of pride to announce to the world that they are "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions". Whatever next - P43DO? N0NCE? (At least that latter word has another, much less objectionable, meaning.)

A broader vision is that most people won't "have" a driverless car: whenever someone wants to go somewhere they will call up a driverless cab to take them there. No driver = cheaper. Theoretically. Overall, fewer vehicles would be on the roads - either on the move or parked - because utilisation would be much higher ie fewer vehicles would be left sitting around empty going nowhere waiting for their owners to need them again. There would be more space on the streets because fewer vehicles would need to be parked up, and less land would need to be given over to off-street parking. Etc etc etc utopia beckons. I've read in the past about people who had 'done the math' and worked out that even using old-tech private hire cars or taxis with actual drivers whenever they wanted to go somewhere was cheaper than owning a car. Obviously it depends on an individual's particular circumstances and needs, but driverless technology may offer the possibility of moving the break-even point substantially in favour of hire vs ownership.

I prefer to use a miniature locking relay which is energised by the same pulse that fires the point motor. I think (though I couldn't actually produce concrete evidence) that solenoid activation of the frog polarity switch is more reliable than a mechanical linkage, which always strikes me as being a bit of a Heath Robinson approach. A relay is bit more expensive than a microswitch, though.

Er, that plays a video called "2 filles 1 carrotte" - I don't think that is the link you meant to post! NSFW, though I believe (I closed the tab pretty smartish!) not nearly as rude as it might at first appear (which I think is given away by the title, assuming you understand enough French).

DVLA says the vehicle is taxed and has MoT: https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-tax The site that Jonboy linked in post #5542 can tell you whether or not the vehicle is insured. Report it anyway. Even if they end up doing nothing about it, it adds to the statistics. I see the "I'd report it to the police but I can't be bothered because they never do anything" response all too often on another site I frequent. It really depresses me. The one thing that is 100% guaranteed to ensure that the police will do nothing about an incident is not reporting it. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Have you reported it to your insurers? They should be much better placed to pursue the miscreant. (And if they bump your premiums at next renewal, just go elsewhere.)

Another use for a road vehicle turntable, just in case the world suddenly decides to stop turning on its axis and you happen to have a Lamborghini Countach* to hand: (Apologies for the poor video quality; it is from some time 1985-1987. I first saw on Italian TV when I was working in Turin, so it must originally date from that period. I believe it did turn up on TV in the UK sometime later.) * Tousled hair and floaty white dress optional.

I don't know whether national TV companies do the F1 coverage these days (I had an idea that F1 do it themselves and sell the pictures to the highest bidder). However, I have many painful memories of watching the French GP back in the days when Murray Walker and James Hunt were in their prime. Wherever the race was running, the French TV production team always seemed to have a strong tendency to just follow the leader round for lap after lap (especially if it was a Frenchman) regardless of what was happening elsewhere in the field. If you were lucky then you got a replay of any interesting or significant action that happened behind the leader, otherwise it was down to the commentators to try to explain what had happened with no pictures to help. I'm sure that James made more than one scathing comment about it over the years. Circuit Paul Ricard itself is back to close to its original layout as it was before Elio de Angelis' fatal testing accident in 1986. The main differences are a chicane in the middle of the Mistral Straight (hey, if it's good enough for the Mulsanne Straight...) and the Verierre curves after the start line (where de Angelis had his crash) have been re-profiled. Compare the original track layout (from the ever-valuable Motor Racing Circuits Database) with the current one (bearing in mind that the Wiki plan has north at the top whereas the MRCD one has south-west at the top, presumably so that it 'sits' on the Mistral straight). Even back in the 1970s and 1980s Paul Ricard was pretty flat and featureless. It's located on a flat, featureless plateau*, for a start! It was built in 1970 (years before the Tilke era) with "innovative safety features" - which probably explains the acres of run-off. * As is Silverstone, largely - certainly in comparison to classic UK circuits like Brands Hatch, Cadwell Park and Oulton Park It's only the Vale (which was added in the early 1990s, and I believe may have involved a non-trivial bit of earth-moving) that gives Silverstone any meaningful elevation changes. That's what you get when you build a racing circuit on an old airfield: Snetterton and Thruxton are other examples. In the case of Paul Ricard, though, they seem to have done it somewhat the other way round - building an airstrip alongside the race circuit!

Afraid I can't comment on your last question, but I can report on my own attempt at the modification. Since I use cab control, I wasn't too worried about the two channels on the controller matching. In fact, I decided to 'do' only one side, so that I could have a choice between the super-smoothed DC as supplied, and the 'ripple' DC obtained from the modification. What I have found is that the output voltage on the 'ripple' channel is about 1V less at full power than the as-original. Unfortunately I didn't bother to compare the two channels against each other before attacking the controller, so I don't know whether the controller has always been like that, or if the difference was introduced by the modification. The result seems to be that, using two almost perfectly matched 100㎌ capacitors, the motor on the loco I was testing with (a Bachmann Jinty) needed the controller knob to be one mark further round before it would get moving when using the 'rippled' channel. Apart from that, the slow running behaviour was largely indistinguishable between the two channels on the controller. Unfortunately (again) the loco I tested with wasn't a notably poor slow runner in the first place, but it was the first one that came to hand and I had limited time. I may do some more testing with a few other locos when the time comes available. I did notice that both channels seemed to have a slightly lower peak voltage in 'reverse' than they did going 'forward'. No idea why. I also discovered that channel 2 - the one I modified, and the one I hardly ever use in practice (hence why I chose that one to modify) - had its polarity the wrong way round. Never noticed that before! That was after I'd closed up the box, though, so for the moment I've just amended the label on the back on the box with a permanent marker. Come to think, I'm not sure that I'll ever actually bother going back inside to switch the internal wiring over... On which subject, if you think that your modification ended up as a bit of a bodge job, you definitely would not want to see mine! I'm only glad that it is hidden away inside a plastic case. (Out of interest, I also tested a Bachmann train set controller. I found that it put out 19V at full power, vs 16V for the unmodified channel on the Morley controller! It was basically a smooth, flat waveform, but with some visible short-period perturbations which weren't seen with the Morley. Reducing the time division on the oscilloscope might have shown up more detail but, again, I was short on time. Slow running seemed a fraction less smooth and reliable, if anything.)

The ferry at Glenelg still has a turntable deck, although it's used more to align the deck with the slipway rather than to turn the vehicles completely around. Usually, the boat itself turns round at one or other end of the crossing. The MV Glenachulish was originally built for the crossing at Ballachulish, then became the backup vessel for Corran, Kessock and Kylesku before finally ending up at Glenelg. (The Ballachulish, Kessok and Kylesku crossings all now have bridges. Corran got a new ferry of its own in 2001.)

That's what I thought, too. I've heard of farmers using those tractor attachments that look a bit like fork lift prongs (I think they're used for moving those 'swiss roll' straw bales about - there is no doubt a proper term for such things) to move cars that have been left obstructing access to their premises.

My previous helmet was an RX7 - IIRC when bought it wasn't outrageously expensive (it was very red, though). When it came time to replace it the cost of the latest RX7s had become highly off-putting. What do they make them out of these days - unicorn horn or something? I ended up with the one a couple of rungs lower in the Arai hierarchy - Chaser, I think? It's mighty comfortable (I bought a set of the slightly thicker cheek pads to get a really snug fit) and as far as I can tell its bells and whistles are easily on a par with my old RX7. OK, it hasn't got the RX7's funky visor system, but the one it does have works just fine. Trouble is, my head doesn't seem to fit any other manufacturer's helmet shape. I had a Shoei for some years but when that one got too old I found that none of the new Shoei helmets seemed to fit properly. Then I tried on an Arai, and my wallet sighed quietly...

This stirs up an uncomfortable memory for me, of the time I tried to dispose of a nearly-new but disappointingly poorly-fitting set of leathers via whatever-it-was-that-we-used-before-the-internet-and-eBay-were-invented. I received one phone call which started off sounding genuine enough, but when the caller asked: "Do you often like to wear leather, then?" I informed him that our conversation was over, and hung up. Thinking of it again now makes me shudder...

Contact the Peco Technical Advice Bureau: https://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=advice They have responded promptly and efficiently to at least two requests for Wills kit instructions that I've sent them in the last couple of years.

That, plus the cost of the licence which was likely difficult to justify when the business was planning for a period of 'austerity'. (IIRC Hornby's announcement that they were letting the TTTE licence go said pretty much that, reading between the lines.)

Mike, can you give an idea of how much (or even whether) computer technology has been brought to bear in the field of timetabling? I ask purely out of curiosity and interest, not seeking to undermine your point in any way. Simply put: I don't know, and I'm intrigued about it! My own experience of something similar - computer-based project planning tools - is that they are at best a useful way to record and organise task and resource information, but still not all that good at sorting out conflicts and dependencies. (Though not quite as bad as the early days, when a favourite Friday afternoon amusement was to click "autoschedule" just to see exactly how far to the right MS Project would push your end date! You could probably have run a fairly profitable sweepstake that way...quite possibly some project teams did just that, if their project was sufficiently boring/doomed/pointless.)

I'm not sure you were ever in date... Yes you do. Also you might want to mention any cows, sheep or pigs you may have run down. The full list of things which qualify as an 'animal' for the purposes of Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents") appears in subsection (8) and consists of: horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat and dog. I'm pretty certain that the 1988 act only updated existing legislation. I'm fairly sure that, when I took my test in 1978, the Highway Code included a similar list of beasts - I recall noticing specifically that you did have to report an accident involving a dog, but not a cat. ISTR it being explained to me that a dog was regarded as the responsibility and property of its owner, whereas cats just do what they like ie are responsible only to themselves. A rare example of the law accommodating reality?!

How do you sort out the ones which need licensing vs those that don't? It's the "sins of the few" issue again. There are many sound arguments against the licensing of pedal cycles. There is also legislation already on the statute book which is intended to deter the kind of behaviour you describe. The real problem IMO is that the enforcement authorities ie the police have been systematically starved of resources over the past few years to the point where they are unable to carry out their enforcement role at all effectively. That goes for motoring offences as well. From my perch on the top deck of the bus at least twice a day, I am guaranteed to be able to observe multiple instances of drivers using handheld mobile phones. The fine for this offence was increased substantially not long ago but countless people still do it because the risk of being caught is vanishingly small. Laws which are not enforced are not worth the paper they used to be written on (it's all electronic these days). By the way: as a general rule, speed limits only apply to motor vehicles. Local authorities do have the power to impose speed limits that apply to pedal cycles but this is very rarely done. In certain of the Royal Parks speed limits do apply to pedal cycles (the history of this particular area of legislation is somewhat convoluted).

Bachmann seem to be doing quite nicely think you without a direct channel (although I allow that they have also announced some 'retrenchment', in particular delaying/postponing some new releases). If Bachmann can survive OK relying on retail channels, I'm not sure that I see the overriding imperative for Hornby to go down the direct sales route. And, much as I dislike the argument, you yourself pointed out that they tried it before and it didn't work - arguably it led to some of the problems they are now experiencing, if only the (hopefully) one-off hit to profits from ceasing the unpopular discounting strategy.

Nit-picky detail point: my understanding is that it was not a race in the sense of first to the finish, but a time trial forming part of a triathlon. Either way, though, it's behaviour like that that only makes it even more likely that regulations around cycle competitions on public roads will be tightened up. The sins of the few and all that.