ejstubbs

At the risk of being torn to pieces by a pack of slavering civil engineers... The Tay Bridge was not a box girder bridge. This: however, was a box girder railway bridge. It pre-dated Bouch's Tay Bridge by nearly 30 years, and it worked just fine for 120 years until some scallys managed to set it on fire. (I remember hearing about the fire on the radio news, and being devastated that it had been destroyed by someone's reckless and criminal stupidity before I had had a chance to get to see it up close.)

I eventually managed to tear myself away from the intriguing philosophical discussions about what constitutes a model railway (I was particularly intrigued by the concept of "real model track"), and people's right to hold and express opinions (or not), I eventually watched Sunday's programme last night on my PVR. (Does anyone still use these, or does everyone use catch-up these days? I couldn't have watched it on 4OD myself, because it's awful: interminable and unavoidable ad breaks - or perhaps more annoyingly, occasional ad breaks with no ads in them, so all they do is interrupt the programme for no reason.) I didn't find the programme as interesting or engaging as I'd hoped. I found the interminable harping on about "the Victorians" "failing" to build a railway up the Great Glen got annoying pretty quickly, especially since it was a fatuous simplification of what actually happened. In the context of a programme which was fundamentally about engineering - given the participation of Dick's Drawbridge, Claire Barratt and Hadrian Shouty Man (no idea why he got the biggest round of applause when introduced) - I thought it was verging on misrepresentation. It certainly wasn't fair to "the Victorians", given that it was primarily commercial and political issues that stopped it being done (after all, "The Edwardians" did build a railway from Spean Bridge as far as Fort Augustus, and then found that it lost money). So I couldn't shake off the feeling that it was based on a false premise. I thought the track idea was fairly innovative, but it seemed to be let down by the built-in track base being inadequate over even an only moderately uneven surface - witness the loco plunging off the track within minutes of setting off. I did think that the big pile of chippings/hardcore/whatever-it-was that someone was standing admiringly next to at before they started the track laying was going to be used to provide a better base for the track. Perhaps that was the original plan, but it got nixed at the last minute by the PTB. I was looking forward to this aspect of it, but I thought they didn't really capture it very well at all. I didn't really get a feel for personalities, and in terms of how they melded together or not all I saw was some soundbite-sized clips, not real interactions. Which brings me on to my next beef with the programme... Shouty man and the ferry (hmm, that could be a good name for band?) As far as I could tell the track laying team had tried to follow the brief given to them by Mr Drawbridge, although they had expressed concerns about the stability of the pontoon (ironic, given that the trailer for the next episode showed the "ferry" that Dick had committed to providing them with capsizing, with the loco on board!) If it was subsequently decided to adopt a different approach then that should have been shown, rather than skipping straight to Shouty Man bawling the team out for not doing it a different ("his") way. So there could have been other stuff that happened ahead of the meltdown that was edited out for some reason. What we did see was simply unacceptable "management" behaviour - it actually made me feel quite uncomfortable watching it (I'm not one of those who enjoys seeing people being made monkeys of, a la The Apprentice) . If I'd been the leader of that track laying team I'd have taken Shouty Man to one side for a word. And if that didn't work then I'd have escalated to the production team. After all, Shouty Man's actions could well have alienated a number of the volunteers to the point where they un-volunteered themselves, and without volunteers there would have been no programme. (I do wonder if the stuff that was edited out was even worse. I note that his contribution doesn't seem to be widely acknowledged on the Channel 4 web pages about the series. Could it have been one reason why the broadcast was so delayed?) The bridge was disappointing, I thought. It's been explained in this thread that they had limited materials to work with. If it was supposed to be a 'challenge' ("the team has got to build a bridge that'll carry the train safely across the canal using only three old orange boxes and a roll of gaffa tape" type of thing) then it might have made more sense. As it was, it just looked like a cock-up. All that money spent on custom-made track sections and trailers to carry it, and they couldn't afford a few more lengths of timber? If you're going to impose artificial constraints to make it more interesting then at least say so, so that the audience understands what the participants are trying to achieve and what they're up against. Overall, I'd say that it sounded like a bonkers idea when it was first mooted, but they managed to pull it off to the extent that <SPOILER> the railway got built </SPOILER> and the programme got made. I do think, from what I've seen so far, that the programme that emerged suffered from not having a clear purpose, and possibly from inadequate planning. I know that these types of programme are always edited to "tell a good story" but I'm not at all sure that this was achieved. I think it ended up as a bit of a mess that tried to be too many things at once: history lesson, social interaction study, technical challenge and light entertainment all in one. I think I'd agree with whoever said that it might have been better as three programmes rather than six: that might have focused the producers' minds a bit, and helped them to create a cohesive package rather than a here-there-and-everywhere pudding with no real substance. Judging by some of the content-free footage that did make it in to the programme, I do think quite a bit more could have been left on the cutting room floor... I'll probably record the remaining episodes but might not get round to watching them. Certainly the missus (who quite likes - or at least tolerates - Portillo, and has enjoyed programmes like The Joy of Train Sets) seemed bored with it very quickly, so it likely won't be something we'll watch together.

Were they serving in Middle Earth at the time??? (Link for those who have no idea what I'm wittering on about.)

Vanishingly unlikely provided that you can demonstrate that you bought the item in good faith. (If it ever did get as far as court proceedings the onus would be on the prosecution to prove collusion between the purchaser and the seller.)

Would the heads on these screws be small enough? (I actually think you're not doing it the way Kadee intend. The #148 coupler, like all the whisker couplers, is meant to be fitted in a gear box - the standard #242, the short #252 or the narrow #262. The gear boxes then attach to the bogie/chassis using 2-56 aka UNC No 2 screws. The Kadee tap and drill set #246 is sold for this purpose: you can either drive the screw into a tapped hole, or into a slightly larger through hole to be secured by a nut on the other side. The head on the 2-56 button head screws I use - again sourced from Model Fixings - is all of 1mm thick and I've yet to have any problems with them interfering with bogie movement. 2-56 is more like M2 than M3, FWIW.)

That would be a showstopper for me. AnyRail doesn't have that problem.

Hmm, possibilities exist there, it's true. AFAICS Hornby have yet to do the rebuilt Scot in crimson, so that route would involve some repainting in order to meet my purposes. By no means out of the question but would be extra work. EDIT: Of course there is a good reason for Hornby not doing the rebuilt Scot in crimson: by the time they were "rebuilt" the only livery was black. However, it turns out Hornby did do a limited edition model of 6100 as preserved in crimson LMS livery, so that could be a way to avoid repainting. There seem to be a few examples of Bachmann's crimson 5664 Nelson available brand new (it's DCC ready so I assume it has the latest, non-split chassis) for not-quite-ludicrous money. That has the Stanier riveted tender, I understand - is that the one you meant? 5588 Kashmir comes with the Stanier welded tender, but it's fitted with DCC sound so more expensive. Unfortunately there don't seem to be any parallel boiler Scot bodies on eBay just now in a condition which I would find acceptable. (One of the ones listed at the moment seems to have suffered an assault on its smokebox door from below - ouch!) I suppose another approach would be to buy Nelson and run that until an acceptable Scot body came up for sale. (I could even end up with two locos for the price of 1½ that way!) Thanks for the suggestions. I base my doubts about the split chassis on discussions such as this one and this one. The view seems to be that the Mainline (& subsequently Bachmann) implementation of the split chassis was let down by weaknesses in the design of the stub axle insulation - which is potentially fixable - and by the short working lifespan of the current-carrying main axle 'bearings', which is more difficult to cure. Split chassis apparently also creates difficulties with DCC (though Bachmann's limited edition Scots came with DCC fitted, so it's clearly not a complete show-stopper). However, that's less of an issue for me since I am still resolutely DC. I'd rather avoid buying a model that is known to be likely to have a limited operational life - though I suppose if I found a decent, recent example of a split chassis, parallel boiler Scot then a non-split Jubilee chassis would still exist as a way to keep it running if the worst did come to pass (and by that point non-split-chassis Jubs might also be appearing on the s/h market at reasonable prices).

Hattons also list some of the Kadee products. DC Kits also do a good range of Kadee products, including "super packs" (not the same as the Kadee bulk packs) of 10 and 20 pairs of couplings. DC Kits are fine to deal with online. (My one experience of buying stuff from them face-to-face, at a show, was they seemed a bit grumpy. Perhaps it had been a long day. Or maybe I was getting in the way of people browsing their table full of DVDs.) I much prefer the 14x series of couplings (listed under "4mm Whisker couplings") as the basis for Kadee-ifying my UK OO RTR stock, compared to the hoary old #5 (though it does very occasionally still have a use). The different shank lengths and coupler offset options of the 14x series mean that you can usually find a 14x coupler that will fit your RTR model without needing too much surgery beyond removal of the OEM coupling and its mounting hardware. The #5, being one length and one height, often needs significantly more jiggery-pokery to get it fitted so that it will work reliably. Remember that the #5 is designed for US HO models with a built-in draft box, so it's not surprising that UK OO models - being a different scale and not having an industry standardised built-in draft box - need a bit of persuasion to take a #5. (Then again, I note that the OP is in Spain so may well be running HO, European image, which could involve completely different gotchas and wrinkles when deploying Kadees.)

I must admit to being a mite disappointed that the non-split-chassis parallel boiler Royal Scot has been put on the back burner. I've got one of Bachmann's modern Patriot models (Duke of Sutherland) and I've had a hankering for a parallel boiler Scot for some time but, although I don't use DCC, the general bad press that the split chassis seems to get has put me off. I'm not aware of another RTR offering made to anything like current standards being available. Oh well, just have to keep waiting I suppose...

Have a look at my thread about this wagon: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/114125-lima-lms-42ft-guv-roof-removal/ some very helpful guidance notes & photos were posted in response to my query. I fitted Bachmann LMS bogies to my LMS GUV using black M5 bolts. The bolt drops through the hole in the floor of the van and is secured with a black nut. I then put a black nylon washer between the nut and the bogie, and secured the bogie using a black nyloc* nut, with a wee bit of play to allow the bogie to accommodate any slight unevenesses in the track. IIRC I didn't have to take the knife or any other cutting implement to either the van floor or the bogie: the M5 bolt was a neat enough fit in both. The nut+washer between the van floor and the bogie gives the right height for the buffers (and could be tweaked if necessary using plastikard). I might be able to find time to take & post some photos if they would be of interest. * Yes, nyloc, not nylon. As in a nut with a nylon insert to grip the thread of the bolt by deformation.

I don't really have a problem with apps that require X11 to run. Yes, it's not the same look & feel as a native MacOS app, but then neither is a Windows app running in VM or under Wine. The problem I had with XtrkCAD was the app itself. I think Nile summed up my own feelings about it pretty well. I think it does have some potentially neat features, but they're mostly a PITA to actually get at. Then again, other people seem to like it so, as I said, YMMV. It's called Railmodeller, not Railroad Modeller. It is on the MacOS app store (I've now been able to check & confirm that) in express and pro versions. I don't recall ever trying it myself so can offer no assessment as to its quality, ease of use etc.

Railmodeller/Railmodeller Pro available through the Mac app store IIRC. XtrkCAD freeware, requires X11 AnyRail - a Windows app, free up to 50 track pieces IIRC - or other Windows-based app, either running under Wine/Winebottler or within a Windows VM via Virtualbox (free), VMWare Fusion (very much not free) or Parallels (ditto). If running a VM you need a licensed copy of Windows (though you can cheat and use VMWare's free P2V tool to make a VM image from a Windows PC and import that VM to run under your chosen virtualisation tool). And yes, all of those options are revealed using a very straightforward Google search. (I hardly bother with RMWeb's own search tool, Google works as well/better for me.) I use AnyRail (paid for) on Win10 running under VirtualBox. I have looked at Wine/Winebottler but it looked like too much of a learning curve to get going whereas I was already comfortable with virtualisation. I have tried XtrkCAD and didn't get on with it at all. YMMV

The one I remember well, from my early-70s railway modelling days before I got in to wargaming, was Sheila Hames on Reginald Street, near the Arboretum. The customer area was tiny, but lined floor to ceiling with tempting goodies, and the stockroom behind the counter seemed to be inexhaustible. Well, to me, anyway - though no doubt someone with greater financial resources than my weekly pocket money would have found its limits sooner or later. EDIT: I've just noticed that Sheila Hames is mentioned in post #54 of this thread. As also is Goodere's, which I seem to remember using a few years later, probably after Sheila Hames had closed. IIRC Goodere's was actually on the corner of Osmaston Road and Nightingale Road, a site which now looks (on Google Streetview) to be a car park. But I'd discovered beer by then, so my memories of that time likely aren't as clear as they might be...

Reading down that ESPN link, I was stunned to see the report of Bette Hill's passing at the weekend. I find it disappointing that it wasn't reported more widely. Is that why the Beeb showed the Graham Hill: Driven documentary the other night, or was that a complete coincidence?

My prescription is +3.5! I use one of the headband magnifiers, like the one in the Hobbycraft link. I might give the Lloyds pharmacy one a try, though - it looks less unwieldy, and I don't actually need the LED light.

The senior exec generally held responsible for the changes to both Countryfile and Time Team is Jay Hunt. Her gardening leave from the Beeb before joining Channel 4 coincided with the employment tribunal of one of the sacked Countryfile presenters: the tribunal's ruling supporting the claims for age discrimination and victimisation were upheld on the day Hunt started her new job. As Chief Creative Officer at Channel 4, the list of Hunt's major achievements includes: out-bidding the BBC for Bake Off, and buying Homeland and The Handmaid's Tale from the US. (Someone somewhere must have a dictionary with a definition of the word "creative" which differs markedly from those in mainstream lexicons, eg Oxford defines "creative" as relating to or involving the use of the imagination or original ideas to create something, rather than having a big cheque book.) Hunt resigned from Channel 4 after missing out on the Chief Exec job, and is now working at Apple (which does have a big cheque book).

My guess would be convertibles were a way around difficulties of filming inside cars (they couldn't stick a Go-pro to the windscreen like they do these days!) and the expense of shooting "driving" scenes in the studio against a back-protection screen (plus it always looks fake anyway). That said, I'm pretty sure that Hitchcock used back projection for the driving scene in "Notorious" which IIRC was in a convertible. But that might have been due to the scene involving high speed driving which would have been tricky to shoot from another vehicle.

This information was posted on RMWeb a few years back. Make up of the train was: M31016M - Full Brake (BG) M30204M - Sorting (POS) M30289M - Sorting (POS) M30235M - Sorting (POS) M30220M - Sorting (POS) M30277M - Sorting (POS) M30214M - Sorting (POS) M30210M - Bag Tender (POT) M30275M - Bag Tender (POT) M30272M - Sorting (POS) M30247M - Sorting (POS) M30276M - Brake Bag Tender (BPOT)

Why do I find this tune drifting through my head? Edit: hmm..that was supposed to start at 3:18. It rather spoils the joke otherwise.

In Edinburgh, our guided bus-way morphed in to a tram track! (There were buses driving around the city with guide wheels still fitted for quite a while after the route was handed over to Bilfiger Berger to do their thing with it.)

That link didn't work for me. Try this: http://roland.arzul.pagesperso-orange.fr/materiel/traction/automotrices_vapeur.htm

Sounds not unlike what happened with the Borders railway, although the additional line capacity that was excised in order to make the business case work turned out to cause non-trivial operational issues from the outset and arguably has impacted uptake of the service due to ongoing and well-publicised reliability issues.

Anyone who gets annoyed at being asked to carry out their business in a safe and responsible fashion can stay annoyed as far as I'm concerned. (At the risk of pandering to a stereotype: small haulage firms all too often seem to be run by the sort of person who is will complain at the slightest provocation about 'excessive regulation' and how it hampers the small businessman.)

One would have thought that a charge of careless driving should be more or less automatic, unless there are obvious extenuating circumstances. It's not like misjudging a gap in busy traffic: the bridges have signs stating the clearance available.

That last requirement might torpedo the latest cunning plan I have for my layout!