ejstubbs

The original intention might have been for it to be 3rd rail themed but most of the photos of it in BRM had steam in shot - alongside blue and grey EMUs - and they added a turntable to it later! The awkward layout was compounded by the fact that the goods shed and yard were parallel to platform three, but only accessible via a headshunt which kicked back off the platform three road. I always thought that arrangement looked pretty inconvenient. I presume the idea was to use a loco from the stabling point to draw the goods wagons back in to the headshunt, but even that would have required a bit of to-ing and fro-ing to get the loco from one side of the layout to the other. The project featured in the January to April 2010 editions of BRM. There was a later article, in the December edition, which covered the construction of the turntable, and the addition of a short scenic section featuring a canal.

Can I sound a small note of caution about siting a model railway in a room in which cooking also takes place? Heat from hobs, ovens, toasters and the like; steam from pans on hobs, kettles and ovens (including microwave ovens); splashes from sinks and spitting fat/oil are all potentially detrimental to models, scenery and baseboards. I would be inclined to keep the layout as far away as possible from the immediate sources of such contamination/damage, and also to ensure that the room is particularly well ventilated so as to reduce the risk of cooking fumes and steam permeating the space.

It was mentioned in this very thread 2½ years ago - see post 105. That has a link to the Disused Stations entry for it, which has a lot more information including maps of the area. It was nothing like Freezer's Minories, BTW. You posted it in your "Layout Help Please" thread (which really ought to have been in this sub-forum, BTW - the "Layout topics" sub-forums is more intended for layouts that people are actually building).

The first layout I ever built, back in the 1970s, used cab control. (It used an automotive battery charger to provide the DC supply, and two Triang P.42 controllers to drive the trains.) IIRC I had six power sections including the fiddle yard. I can't remember where I read about it but I know it made immediate sense to me. To my mind, anything that requires you to 'synchronise' controllers as a train moves around the layout is a pretty ropey old bodge. There's nothing wrong with an isolating section (ie a section powered via an on-off switch from the power section leading in to it) to allow a loco to be 'parked' eg at the end of a terminus platform road when another loco needs to enter the same section. A classic example would be the isolating sections on the ends of the platform roads in the original Minories. I believe that cab control is much more widely used for DC than the OP seems to imagine.

This thread appears to morphed from genuinely bad movies to movies that people just didn't like/didn't enjoy - sometimes for entirely understandable reasons. I would suggest, though, that a plot full of holes can be redeemed if the rest of the work done on the movie (screenplay, set design, photography, actors who manage to make hokum seem believable etc). A prime example IMO would be virtually any James Bond movie. Having got that out of the way, my nomination for one of the worst movies ever would be The Blair Witch Project. All hype and absolutely zero substance IMO. The cinematography was awful - I get that it was supposed to be "found footage", but most of it was just unwatchably bad (and gave me a headache to boot, until I shut my eyes and dozed on and off through the rest of the film). Any YouTuber with the tiniest amount of self-respect would edit out most of the camera-going-all-over-the-place footage that was left in TBWP. On top of that, the characters were irredeemably stupid, and the 'horror' was disappointingly weak. I recall a scene in which the female protagonist filmed herself by torchlight (as you do, when menaced by an unknown killer) in which she said that they were all going to die. My only thought at that moment was: "Good - please hurry up!" Unfortunately it took about another 30-40 minutes for the torture to dribble to something approximating a conclusion. I would have walked out but the cinema was rammed, we were in the middle of a row, and my lift home seemed happy to stay to the bitter end

I'd agree with that. The only use I have found for #5s is on non-NEM-fitted Hornby tenders (specifically: a Black 5 number 5055, and a streamlined Duchess of Devonshire) where, entirely by coincidence, if you attach a #5 using the same self-tapping screw in the same screw hole as the Hornby coupling, the #5 turns out to be exactly the right height and length. (You do have to cut away a bit of the lower cross member at the rear of the chassis to allow the coupling to protrude. The modification isn't visible in normal operation but it does mean that the loco can't be sold on as "as new", if this is a concern.) IME the absence of sideways wiggle on the tender coupling is actually useful for actuating close coupling mechanisms on coaches, and isn't a problem with wagons (not that my streamlined Duchess does very much freight work!) I agree with this observation as well. Apart from the increased risk of buffer locking, it looks unsightly and - especially if the couplings don't 'unwind' when the train gets back on to straight track - the off-centre push can contribute to derailments in its own right. I think it primarily manifests itself as a problem between the loco and the first coach/wagon - which is another reason why limiting the sideways wiggle on the tender coupling can actually be beneficial.

I make it 32' x 2' - he's got 4 of the 6ft boards, remember.

I find the explanations on the signalbox.org web site useful. I also found browsing Bob Essery's Railway Signalling and Track Plans informative - he does provide examples of signalling a number of different track layouts, as well as explaining operational considerations. Heck, I even found some illuminating information in good old Cyril Freezer's Model Railway Signalling. But when it comes to specific situations that don't obviously fit neatly within the basic rules then asking the question here has provided some extremely helpful guidance - as has browsing other modeller's questions of a similar nature, even if their specific layout isn't necessarily identical to mine. I think that, when asking question of this nature, it really helps to provide a clear track plan and an explanation of what the intended traffic is supposed to be (eg which lines disappearing off scene are main lines or branch lines, which types of goods are intended to be handled in which sidings and so forth). Annotating the points, platforms, sidings/goods facilities and (if you already have an idea of what might work) signals on the diagram make it much easier for people to then explain where amendments to layout, operation or signalling might be required. While I respect what the OP was setting out to achieve, I personally doubt whether a forum thread - or, at any rate, a single forum thread - is an effective way to go about it. (And I do wonder whether some folks expect to get rather too much for free on t'internet when they might be well advised to, you know, buy a book about it, at least to give themselves a grounding...)

Well, Bachmann came up with the goods - in the form of an e-mail with the documents attached - within 24 hours, so kudos to them. No explain as to why the documents aren't on their web site, though. To top it all, I actually came across the originals last night, quite by chance, and in a wholly unexpected and inexplicable place: folded up and tucked inside the documents for the 3F. D'oh... Thanks again to Free At Last for making the effort to scan them.

What a star - thank you! Looks like the spare part numbers for the 1F are not the same as those for the 3F Jinty. Doesn't mean that they're not actually the same physical parts, of course. The 1F is noticeably smaller than the Jinty, though (according to Wikipedia the 1F has a 15' wheelbase whereas the 3F is 16'6") so I would have expected there to be some parts not in common.

Now why didn't I think of that myself? I've contacted the Service Department through the "contact us" link on Bachmann's web site. I'll post an update when/if they get back to me.

The report linked to above says 40k to go so, looking at the stage 2 route, my guess would be Widdrington where the B1337 crosses the ECML. I really wouldn't want to chance it crossing the ECML in open country! (There's a yellow road that crosses the ECML on the level immediately after it turns off the A198 from Seton to Longniddry. Gives me the wig every time I see the crossing as I drive past. Those IC225s don't hang about along there if they can help it, and if anything were to go wrong...) I'd take a punt on the rusty rails crossings being probably the ones on the A1061 at South Newsham and the A1068 at Choppington. (Those were closer to the finish and probably more likely to appear in the highlights.)

I bought a Bachmann half-cab 1F (product number 31-433) soon after the model was first released. I don't seem to be able to locate the manual and service sheet which I assume came with it (although I can't be 100% sure that they did), and Bachmann don't seem to list them for download on their web site. Does anyone have copies of these documents which they could perhaps scan for me, if they were feeling terribly kind and helpful?

A "no returns" policy does not apply if the item is not as described - which includes not working if the listing didn't indicate that (eg described as "for spares or repair"). The policy is mainly there to stop people returning stuff because they decide it's not what they want. This is enshrined as a right in the Consumer Contracts Regulations but only between a customer and a business. The regulations don't apply to private sales of any kind, new or used (and eBay doesn't require items sold as new to be returnable either AFAICS), but they do apply to businesses selling used goods.

I think the buyer has to cancel the return request. If he goes to his purchase history in "My eBay" it should show his order for the item with the return still outstanding, but with an option to cancel the return. You and he then just work out the refund between you, presumably via PayPal. There's no need to get eBay involved in a £10 refund UNLESS you think that the buyer later might pull a fast one and start a "not as described" dispute after you've refunded him the £10. That could end up with eBay refunding him the full amount that eBay thinks he's paid, so you'd end up even more out of pocket. Even simpler: I think that eBay will just expire the return request if he doesn't send the item back within a certain time - about a month I think, maybe 30 days. It should indicate the time left to complete the return in the "My eBay"entry for his order for the item.

I thought he'd just run out, after having to hand all his apostrophes over to those who favour it's and their's as possessives. (I think I even saw theirs' recently <shudders>.) Is this the right room for an argument about of being used in place of have?

I stand corrected! Note that "for the pedantics amongst you," should be either "for the pedantic amongst you," or "for the pedants amongst you". Just a point of grammar (Actually, "pedantics" sounds like quite an interesting subject for a university course module. Some people on here could probably get first class honours...)

I think "might be possible" is more accurate that "would be possible". True, looking at the roads north of the lake it looks like something could be done using Chemin des Floralies - the wee link road that the map shows as leading back on to the track from the roundabout at the east end could possibly be adapted, although when you look at it on streetview it's actually two separate car parks at the moment. That would lop about 1km off the 4.38km of the current circuit. (The Avenue Pierre Dupuy is a non-starter, I think, because the slip road to it takes you westwards, away from the island.) How much shorter does the circuit need to be for Formula E? It would still be necessary to find a way past the restriction on the number of race weekends per year.

That photo is dated 1978, the year the track was first used. Up to and including 1986 the pits were at the other end of the island, immediately after the hairpin. Source: http://theracingline.net/racingcircuits/Canada/index.html

I don't think there is a lot of scope for shortening the lap of the Circuit Gilles Villeneueve. Most of the open space in the middle of the circuit that would be needed for a short-cut is actually water! Also, according to Wiki only two race weekends per year are permitted on the track. One of those is the F1 weekend. If Formula E wanted to use the track then whatever uses the other race weekend would have to get bumped elsewhere.

It's closing again after tomorrow, for a few days. I'm going for a stroll on it this coming weekend. Apparently the idea is to increase the speed limit to 70mph over time (perhaps to allow Fifers to come to terms with the idea of crossing bodies of open water at such insane speeds). That should increase the throughput over the old bridge. And it has a hard shoulder - it is full motorway standard, unlike the old bridge - so breakdowns should be less disruptive. The intelligent traffic management system should also help keep it moving at busy times. Well, that's the plan, anyway...

If Grayling ever did anything with the objective of impressing people, he doesn't seem to have succeeded. He seems entirely adequately impressed with himself to need to worry about what other people think of him.

No, it's not. Freeview+ was the name used for a while for Freeview boxes with recording capability. The name was chosen deliberately to make people realise that they did the same job as the Sky+ boxes (though for Freeview, obviously, rather than Sky) which were very popular at the time. Freeview+ has been more or less superseded now by Freeview Play, which includes the "backwards EPG" feature for viewing catch-up content on BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All 4 and My5 without having to fire up a separate app for each one. Both Freeview+ and Freeview Play refer to equipment with recording and/or catch-up capabilities in addition to broadcast reception. Talking Pictures is broadcast on a Freeview HD multiplex, although it isn't an HD channel. That means that you need a Freeview HD set-top box or TV to receive it through a UHF aerial: the HD multiplexes cannot be received on non-HD Freeview kit. The HD multiplexes have significantly more bandwidth available than the non-HD ones, specifically to cater for HD channels which need the higher bandwidth. However, the demand for the multiplex capacity for HD channels hasn't been as great as expected, so some of the spare capacity is being sold to non-HD channels. A non-HD channel takes up proportionately much less of an HD multiplex than it does of a non-HD multiplex (everything else being equal) so you can get more such channels on an HD multiplex without having to squeeze the video resolution or audio quality (as happens on the non-HD, non-public service multiplexes such as the SDN and Arqiva-owned ones where a lot of the +1 channels live). In that sense, it's probably a good thing that Talking Pictures TV is broadcast on an HD multiplex - apart from for people who can't receive the HD multiplexes. There's no such thing as "Sky Freeview". They do (or did, I think they no longer actively market it) have an offering called "Freesat from Sky" which, on purchase of a viewing card, allowed access to a number of free-to-view satellite channels in addition to the free-to-air channels offered by the 100% fee-free and subscription-free Freesat service. Talking Pictures TV is on Freesat (not "Freesat from Sky") channel 306. There is a view that Sky chose the name for their 'free' service with an eye to creating confusion with the nascent Freeview terrestrial and Freesat satellite services, during the run-up to analogue terrestrial TV being switched off. You do not need an HD Ready TV to watch Talking Pictures TV. "HD Ready" means that the TV's screen can display 1280×720 pixel HD content; there was another term "Full HD" which meant that the screen could display 1920×1080 pixel content. Neither term conveys anything about what broadcast signals the TV can receive. This was a source of widespread confusion to consumers ever since the terms were dreamed up in some marketing department somewhere, before the days when HD reception became more or less a standard feature in TVs - at least modern "big screen" TVs. No-one really knows how many people thought that they were watching 'HD TV' when in fact they were just watching standard definition broadcasts upscaled within the TV to fit its high-resolution screen. In the early days, the only mainstream sources of true HD content were Sky HD for broadcast content, and Blu-ray (or, before its demise, HD DVD) discs. Talking Pictures TV is not an HD channel, it uses the standard definition 576 pixel vertical resolution which pretty much any TV sold from around the late 1960s onwards can display. (The 576 pixel vertical resolution is based on the old "625 lines" UHF TV pioneered, in the UK at least, by BBC2. The missing 50-odd "lines" were not used for picture in analogue TV - they were actually made use of by the later Teletext system to carry the digital information used by that system, encoded in to the picture signal.) What you do need to receive Talking Pictures TV is a TV or separate set-top box capable of receiving either: the Freeview HD multiplexes - which use a higher-bandwidth digital terrestrial broadcast technology compared to the original Freeview (DVB-T2 vs DVB-T, if you want the actual terminology), or the free-to-air satellite channels - which means either a Sky box (which doesn't need to have a viewing card installed if you only want to watch the free-to-air channels, which include Talking Pictures TV), a Freesat set-top box, or a Freesat capable TV.

I think you may be confusing a modern potentiometer: which even the latest electronic DC controllers use, with a wire-wound rheostat, such as found in venerable beasties like the Tri-ang P.42: Rheostats are, as you say, retro tech for our purposes and probably best replaced with a complete new controller. Modern potentiometers in an electronic controller are fine, but pretty much non-user-serviceable so if they do go on the fritz then the simplest remedy is to replace them - if you can source the right one. The OP may be able to find some kind of specification or ID on the existing pots - there's usually something marked on the bottom face of the round body of the pot, which can if all else fails be plugged in to Google to see if it sheds any light. Gaugemaster may be dominant in this field, but they're not the only game in town. Apart from the ones available from foreign manufacturers as listed by Dutch_Master, there's: Morley, whose Vector dual controller with built-in CDU works fine for me. I particularly like the centre-off potentiometers they use - especially now that they have a positive detent at the off position, and it really is off. (I've never got on with reversing switches.) The Vector is fully self-contained, so there's no separate transformer required. And it comes with two hand-held controllers included, that plug in to the base unit; Modelex, whose single units seem to be liked by some; The Pictroller which is an update on the widely admired Pentroller as originally developed for Pendon. This offers a variety of control modes and settings, as well as having capability for automatic operations. Quite a sophisticated device, but priced accordingly. Hornby still does single and dual DC controllers, though I'm not aware of them having many actual fans. And Bachmann does a single DC controller which some rate highly for the price (this one is often available second-hand having been split from a Bachmann train set). There may well be others out there that I've forgotten/not run in to online. There are plenty of threads on RMWeb and other model railway forums on the subject - again, Google is your friend. (Incidentally, if you can't see the photo of the inner workings of the Triang P.42 controller then the URL for the photo is: http://yourmodelrailway.net/gallery/15/15_251330_350000001.jpg. It's in the ninth post on this thread on the yourmodelrailway.net forum. The embedded photo shows up fine when I edit the post, but not when I view it as part of the thread. No idea why. Sorry.)

My suggestion: we have a number of similar-looking holes in our lawn at the moment which appear to be caused by fungal fruiting bodies (aka 'mushrooms' or 'toodstools') which come up overnight and then get eaten by wildlife (magpie/squirrel/fox/hedgehog/something else) passing through the garden in the early hours. Sometimes you can find the remnant of the 'root' (apparently officially called the "volva") at the bottom of the hole.