ejstubbs

It very much depends on the make & vintage of each model. The hook on Bachmann NEM couplings can just be popped out of the body of the coupling (and popped back in again if you choose to later). I can't speak authoritatively re other manufacturer's NEM couplings as I've gone all-Bachmann (although I am in the process of experimenting with Kadees). I know that some older tension-lock couplings - especially the big ones on old Hornby stock - have the hook attached using a loose rivet which you can drill out, or just monkey to pieces using a combination of wire cutters, pliers and stupidity (that'd be me, then).

I re-watched "4472m - Flying Scotsman" last night (the BBC film of the 1968 non-stop KGX to EDB run - available on iPlayer). The whistle definitely sounded a bit feeble at times in that. Edit to add: The film also includes some rather fine footage which can only have been shot from a helicopter (eg around about the 16 minute mark - example screenshot here). Just sayin', like...

According to this table, 2-56 is a coarse thread (56 tpi) #2 diameter screw. #2 diameter is 2.18mm major diameter, so an M2 will fit - and I can confirm that an M2 is a very slightly loose fit through the mounting hole in the Kadee draft box. It looks like an M2.2 would be a snug fit, but I don't have one to hand to try. These people http://www.modelfixings.co.uk/ look like a good source of small size self-tapping and machine screws, and they also do corresponding drill & tap sizes if you'd prefer to avoid using self-tapping screws, or drilling through and using a nut. If nothing else, their web site is easier to navigate than an eBay search results list. I intend to place a trial order for some bits and bobs from them shortly. Eileen's Emporium may also have suitable screws and taps, they are usually a good source of odds and ends like that. If you do want to use Kadee's 2-56 machine screws, having just checked the price from Gaugemaster, the Kadee drill & tap set #246 actually looks sensibly priced. 8BA is 2.2mm major diameter, 59.17tpi, so the diameter is OK but the tpi is smidge finer than the 2-56. So long as the tapped material is reasonably soft - eg polystyrene or white metal - then it should be OK, assuming that both the screw and the receiving material will 'give' a bit. If the receiving material is significantly harder than the nylon screw then I expect you'd end up trashing the thread on the screw EJ Stubbs, Self-Appointed President of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Screw Threads and Heads (SPCSTH)

So does the #206 insulated gauge.

I'm still firmly grounded on planet Earth, thank you. There is a link to the Wikipedia account of the incident in one of the comments under the video on YouTube. The Wikipedia article states: "The driver drove through a rail crossing near the Studénka train station. The crossing was protected by signal lighting and gates, and the driver entered the crossing when the red lights accompanied by acoustic signal were on for at least 30 seconds. The driver drove into the crossing despite warnings and as the gates went down, he stopped the truck on the tracks.[4] Instead of ramming through the gate, which is constructed so as to allow even a motorbike to penetrate the barrier and automatically sends a stop signal to all approaching trains if breached, the driver moved the truck only a few metres forward in order to avoid a direct impact to its cab, with its trailer carrying aluminium sheets remaining on the track." The Czech news article in linked from the Wikipedia article states that the operation of the warning lights was confirmed by the preliminary investigation. You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that my comment was based purely on viewing the video.

I hope they throw every book they can find at that homicidally dangerous lorry driver. (Seeing as how he doesn't seem to have cared much about anyone but himself, once he'd broken the law by passing the flashing lights why didn't he just drive through the barrier to get off the crossing? Or is he one of those clueless idiots who thinks that "the train will stop"?)

I agree with this. In fact I was going to raise it earlier, but I got confused about halsey is actually trying to achieve in his branch terminus: is it the ability to operate two (or even more) locos in that area, or is it making sure that there won't be any power dead spots? If the latter then the more power feeds the better (a la DCC). If the former then KISS should apply - but then KISS to me would be mean full cab control (because that way you design out 'phantom' routes for power and you know which sections are powered and which aren't), and IIRC halsey has already said he doesn't want that. Which of course is entirely his choice. That's not what I meant by powering from the heel end. What I meant (and what halsey's trackplan in post #236) was powering from both rails of one road on the heel end of the point, Doing it that way means that, in an insulfrog point, power to the toe end from that power feed will be interrupted by setting the point against the road to which power is being applied. (And yes, I know that in halsey's track plan the goods yard can also be powered from the other power feed, provided points 2 and 3 are set appropriately, but that's by no means going to be the case with every track configuration.) No, it's nothing to do with electro vs insul frogs. David is simply pointing out that you can apply power at any location along the continuous (ie unswitched) rails which run through the each side of a point, even a good ways further along each road from the point in question - hence potentially saving wire if the point itself is a long way from the control panel. Personally I wouldn't do it that way, since I would prefer to spend a bit more on wiring in order to make debugging easier at a later date - but again, each to his own, rule 1 applies etc etc. (By the way: in case anyone takes exception to the tone of any of the above, please be assured that no offence is intended. It's just that it's Friday, I still have a cold and I'm struggling to be as cheerful as I would normally try to be. Sorry!)

Chris Your diagram is correct, and it proves what I agreed with you on before: that to prevent 2-7 being live when point 2 is set against it, you need to operate points 6 and 7 together - just like they would have been in the prototype. The single IRJ is to prevent 2-6 being live when point 2 is set against it. As I said in my loooong post last night, ensuring that points 6 and 7 are always operated together will prevent this, too. The single IRJ is just another way of achieving the same thing (I think - as I said, my brain was full of cold last night so if you want to draw that one out and prove me wrong, I'd be more than happy to retract the idea!) Call it failsafe, if you like - particularly relevant if the points are being worked manually rather than by point motors. Looking at point 7 from the bufferstop ie the toe end, the single IRJ should go on the left-hand of the two rails emerging from point 7's frog. No additional switch would be required, so the control panel can remain unchanged. I agree with you that a pair of IRJs between points 3 and 4 might be a good idea, together with moving the power feed for the goods yard to between point 4 and 5. The main reason I think this would be a good idea is that it would avoid any unexpected and difficult-to-diagnose behaviour arising from power being fed to points from the heel end. A possible side benefit is that it would allow the branch terminus to be run with more than one loco (although not simultaneously). For example, a loco could be shunting in the goods yard, then isolated in a siding (or even the headshunt) while a passenger train arrives and runs round. Then, while the passenger train is waiting to depart, the passenger loco could be isolated on its platform and the goods loco could finish shunting the yard and depart with its train. Again, this would only need the new IRJs and one power feed moved; no additional switching would be required.

I'm going to go a bit Pierre de Fermat here and say that I had a beautifully expressed explanation all written up and ready to post, but then I pressed the wrong button and lost it all I'll try to re-create it over lunch - I am at work today, despite the cold and the lack of sleep...

I agree with that, at least in respect of 2-7. I can't remember whether halsey is working the points manually or by point motors. If the latter then it would be straightforward to work 6&7 together from one switch - which would, as you say, be the way they would have been worked in real life. If the points are being worked by hand then the operator would just have to remember to follow the rule. I agree with that, too. With IRJs on both rails of the crossover then there would be no way to run a locomotive from 2-6 into the spur beyond 7 (or vice versa) without it - in other words, you couldn't run round! Ignoring point 3 for a moment, if point 2 is set for the 2-7 road, and 7 is reversed then 2-6 would be live. What happens is that the "upper" rail of 2-7 is always live (because it's continuous all the way to the bufferstop beyond point 7). With point 7 reversed there is also a circuit from that "upper" rail out of the frog of point 7 towards point 6. Since the corresponding rail on point 6 is continuous, that makes the "upper" rail in 2-6 live as well. Now looking at point 3, if that is set towards the 3-6 road then the "lower" rail of 3-6 is also live (since the "lower"rail of point 2 is continuous). One way to get round this would be to make sure that point 3 is never set to the 3-6 road when point 2 is set to the 2-7 road. Following on from the answer to keeping 2-7 isolated, as previously described, you might think that the way to do this would be have points 2 and 3 operate together - but if you did that then you never be able to access the goods yard (oops). In fact, though, operating points 6 and 7 together fixes this problem too, since you would (should) never leave point 7 reversed if point 2 is set to the 2-7 road. Alternatively - or even additionally - you could put a single IRJ on the rail which emerges from the from of point 7 towards point 6. Making it a single IRJ would avoid having to have the additional power feed to the toe of point 7. I agree with that, too. In fact I'd go further, and say why not run the upper branch as cab control? IRJs between points 3 and 4, with a separately switched power feed between points 4 and 5. More IRJs between points 6 and 7, and after point on the 2-7 road, with a separately switched power feed to the toe of point 7. That way at least nothing would be live when you didn't expect it to be. Come to think, wasn't halsey planning to run the branch "one engine in steam"? If so then all of this is largely moot... MAJOR CAVEAT TO ALL OF THE ABOVE: I have a stinking cold so my reasoning may well be faulty. I only decided that I had to join in with this particular debate because the cold woke me up, and then couldn't get back to sleep because of thinking about the problem! Oh, and another thing: I'd have drawn diagrams to illustrate what I'm saying in all the above, but (as anyone who's seen my post on the current Kadee couplings thread can attest) my drawing skills are minimal to non-existent. And finally: sorry about the unnecessary blank lines in my quotes of Chimer's post. I can't seem to make them go away Right, now I've got all that off my chest it's time to take some more drugs and head back to bed!

The uncoupler magnets definitely have opposite poles at the two long edges. That's easy to see by laying two of them side by side: one way round they will repel each other, the other way round they attract. If you have a magnetic compass you can easily find out which is the north pole of the uncoupling magnet, and which is the south, according to which end of the compass needle each side attracts. It's simply not possible to make a permanent magnet with one pole in the middle and the opposite pole at each end, which is what you seem to be suggesting, and what the diagram on your blog suggests. If you could take one of the uncoupling magnets and magically split it lengthways, the newly-exposed faces of the resulting thin magnets will be opposite poles to the corresponding outer edges ie you'd end up with two thin magnets each with one north pole and one south. That's how magnets work. (What you suggest would actually be a physical marvel: effectively a magnetic monopole, which has never been observed experimentally). I've done some experiments with a tiny sliver of staple wire about 1mm long. Some couplers' trip pins will just about pick it up. Others leave it totally unaffected. I reckon some of the pins may pick up a very small amount of residual magnetism from the uncoupling magnets, but it's not anything like enough to make the pin be attracted to one pole and repelled from the other. If it were then the Kadee system would be basically useless: since the pins on all couplers would have to have the same magnetic polarity at their tips, the pins on two couplers would repel each other and stock would never couple! Since it can easily be proven that the uncoupling magnet has opposite poles on each side, and the trip pin will deflect to the right, viewed in the direction of travel, regardless of the direction from which the vehicle approaches the uncoupling magnet, such residual magnetism as may exist in the trip pin is demonstrably of no consequence compared to the strength of the field within 0.8mm of the surface of the uncoupling magnet. What you need to do with the neodymium magnets is to create a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of the track. That means having opposite poles directly opposite each other. My neo bar magnets have the N and S poles on the flat faces of the bars. If you put them with the N poles both uppermost then they will largely cancel each other out in the space between them ie where the trip pins are. If you put them opposite ways round then they work together to create a strong perpendicular magnetic field between the rails. My freehand drawing skills are far from good, and my handwriting is appalling, but hopefully these scribbles will be adequate to illustrate what I mean:

Fundamentally, the trip pins need to move sideways, which means that the magnetic field needs to be at right angles to the direction of the track. If the uncoupling magnet had a north pole at one and a south pole at the other then the magnetic field would run parallel to the track and the trip pin would not move. This can easily be demonstrated by taking a single Kadee coupler and lowering it by hand towards an uncoupling magnet at right angles to the normal direction: the trip pin will not move, even when it is in contact with the surface of the magnet. Since this can be demonstrated using a single coupler, it disproves the theory that some people put forward about induced magnetism in the trip pins causing them to repel. It is worth keeping in mind how the stock uncoupling magnets work when experimenting with using small, discrete neodymium magnets in place of the ferric slabs that Kadee sell.

I had a some coaches with those square section plastic axles - IIRC they're Hornby RailRoad models. Those plastic axles carry plastic wheels with metal tyres. IMO you can't make the situation any worse by swapping them out for better all-metal wheels and axles. The point a couple of folks have raised about checking that the bogies are free to rotate is a good one. I don't know anything about the six-wheeled wagon but I believe that these usually have some articulation on the middle axle in order to allow the wagon to traverse Setrack-radius curves. If it is supposed to be articulated and is somehow not functioning correctly then I imagine that could cause problems similar to a bogie that isn't rotating smoothly.

I doubt there is a significant difference in the frog geometry between insulfrog and electrofrog versions of the Peco turnouts. (You are using Streamline, aren't you, not Setrack?) As Kevin says, changing wheels is a whole lot easier than trying to 'fettle' proprietary pointwork - which very likely doesn't have anything wrong with it anyway. For changing wheels on non-locomotive rolling stock, the Hornby wagon and coach wheels should be fine. The 12.5mm wheels are for wagons, the 14.1mm wheels for coaches: R8096 12.5mm disc wheels R8097 12.5mm 3 hole wheels R8098 12.5mm spoked wheels R8218 14.1mm disc wheels R8234 14.1mm 4 hole wheels R8268 14.1mm 2 hole wheels These are all metal axles with (insulated) metal wheels, which are generally regarded as being vastly better than plastic wheels in terms of not leaving dirt on the rails. Also metal wheels and axles add to the weight of the wagon/coach, and do so in the best place ie low down, which in itself can noticeably improve the running of the wagon/coach. Bachmann also do a range of replacement wheels, and even complete coach bogies - although these latter may require a bit of work to fit coaches from other manufacturers which don't use the same attachment/pivot mechanism as Bachmann (basically, if you're not confident about disassembling the coach to get access to chassis from the top, then don't go there). Replacing the wheels is usually simply a case of gently easing the sides of the coach bogie or wagon underframe apart until the old wheels and axle can be removed, and then reversing the procedure to fit the new ones. Note that quite a few older coaches were originally fitted with under-sized wheels, more like 13mm than 14mm. Fitting slightly larger wheels might mean that the couplings end up a little too high to work reliably, so you may end up having to shim them down a little. My experience has been that you can end up spending a non-trivial amount on re-wheeling and otherwise fettling older, second-hand stock, to the extent that it's ultimately more cost-effective to sell a troublesome old item on and buy a more modern version of the same thing if such is available. As Kevin suggests, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of the used items you've bought were being disposed of for this very reason! It ultimately comes down to a balance between how much money & effort you are prepared to spend making something work, versus the cost of buying a better equivalent. Re-wheeling old locos may not be a straightforward task. Unless you are prepared to get involved in re-working parts of the chassis/drivetrain then you may be limited to simply replacing the stock wheels with new ones of the same. As Kevin suggests, run each loco 'light engine' through the troublesome areas to see if there's anything that's clearly not running true. Also inspect the existing wheels and if there's nothing obviously wrong with them (no flat spots, warps, chunks missing etc) then you probably only need to check the back-to back on each axle and adjust if necessary. For older locos, if the original wheels aren't up to running reliably through modern code 100 pointwork then replacing them with matching spare parts (eg from Peter's Spares, eBay etc) likely won't fix the problem. It might be possible to fit more modern wheels, but that might also involve a fair bit of trial and error and/or research to find modern wheels that will fit with the minimum of modification to the rest of the loco. Ultimately, the same balance applies as for non-locomotive stock: if it's going to take a lot of money and effort to put it right then you may prefer to put the old item back on eBay and simply suck up the extra cost of a newer model.

Don't tell me the council have blocked off all the best dogging laybys in your area, too?

You're probably thinking of the Kadee 13 Magne-Matic Coupler Sample Test Kit - actually includes a pair of each type (which kind of makes sense when you think about it!) Doesn't include the NEM ones, though.

My sister-in-law lives in Sydenham. Her nearest station is Penge East. She habitually refers to it, whimsically, as "Ponge Est" (with a hint of a French accent). This was all well and good until, a few years back on a visit to That London, my other half actually walked up to a ticket office window at Victoria and demanded two singles to "Ponge Est", causing much puzzlement for the booking clerk. Fortunately I overheard her request and was able to jump in with a swift correction before the ever-growing queue behind us became too irate...

Mainline stock may be sold on eBay as "as new" but it's not really "new" - the brand shut down in the early 1980s so anything you buy now will have been made to the standards of 30+ years ago. Not bad per se, but could possibly benefit from a bit of fettling to run well with more modern stock and track.

Gaugemaster seemed to have most of the coupler range in stock when I checked last week. Unless I completely misunderstood their web site...

No, because there was no infinitive in your sentence. St Enodoc is correct: adverbs of manner such as "firmly" usually go in 'end position' ie at the end of the clause. In the case of your sentence, there is also an adverbial phrase of position ("round the ear") which also usually goes in end position. Since both the adverb and the adverbial phrase must appear in end position, the adverb of manner should appear before the adverbial phrase of location, following the 'manner-place-frequency-time-reason' ordering rule.

Or you could do what I do: have one each of the Bachy and the Hornby! In fact, my six-wheel-pickup Bachmann Jinty stalls pretty much every time on one particular Setrack (ie insulfrog) point on my test track, whereas my four-wheel-pickup Hornby one trundles serenely through without a pause. Go figure...

The mantra used to be: "measure twice, cut once". Perhaps it needs to be: "think three times, measure twice, cut once"? I know lots of people moan about these points, but I have to say that my ST425 works fine. However, that is one point on its own. If you have a ladder of curved points I can imagine that such an arrangement might prove more problematic. You might want to experiment with using a normal point at the end of a curve to give a diverging road with the straight part of the point. It isn't quite as compact as using a curved point but it might still do what you need, and give you more reliable running.

It's probably a combination of the Nanny State and the risk of getting sued. A sad state of affairs indeed. I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with that. Just stop for a moment to consider the quantities of cookery books that are published each year, and the innumerable recipes that appear in newspapers and magazines, on TV and online. These involve chopping, slicing, dicing, cutting, grating, peeling, crushing, tenderising, the use of power tools like blenders and food processors, high temperature processes often involving the use of a naked flame - basically, a multitude of tools and techniques which could, if mis-applied, result in potentially serious injury. Actually, the kitchen gadget that gives me the willies every time is the mandolin - it looks to me like it was designed specifically for the removal of finger tips! Nonetheless, I will confidently offer a prize* for anyone who can provide a convincing reference to case which has been successfully been brought against a publisher as a result of injuries arising from attempting to follow a cookery recipe. As for the use of the tired old Daily Express catchphrase "the Nanny State": how the 'state' has anything to do with what private individuals might choose to try to sue people for is beyond rational comprehension. Still, at least no-one's mentioned the equally weary "Health and Safety gone mad!" Oh, hang on... * Something obscure from my spares box, probably.

You're probably thinking of the Setrack turnouts which have a diverging angle of 22.5° (or 11.25° for the curved turnouts). The OP referred to "short. medium and long" turnouts which implies Streamline (since Peco Setrack only has one length of turnout) and in that range the angles are much smaller. Again, radius 1/2/3 is a Setrack concept which isn't used in the Streamline range. The product descriptions on the Peco web site do specify both the divergent angle and the nominal radius of each turnout, for example see the description of the large radius L/H turnout. (It's worth noting that the divergent angles and nominal radii for the Code 83 Streamline turnouts are not the same as for the Code 100 and Code 75. Why Peco lump all three rail codes into one long list on their web site is beyond me, especially since the descriptions of the invidual items don't specify the rail code. You apparently have to "just know" that code 75 has a "1" prefix on the number part of the poduct, and code 83 has "83".)

According to the information I've seen, the angle subtended by the curved section (which AIUI is not the same as the frog angle) of all the code 100 points is 12°. One exception is the long Y point, where the two curved sections are each only 6°, giving a total divergent angle of 12°. The curved points also diverge at 12°; as far as I can tell the inner track curves by 19° and the outer by 7°. So you can form a crossover from one long and one short point, and the double tracks will be parallel. In addition, due to other point geometry jiggery-pokery, whatever combination of straight points you use to form the crossover (long+short, short+medium etc) the track separation will always be 52mm.