knitpick

russ p is spot on. But how many lines on the modern railway are still absolute block (preservation lines excepted)? Most if not all are controlled from a central signalling centre (including Scotish and Welsh lines using RETB) so the signalman has no chance to spot the end of the train as it goes "into the next section"). Also most trains have continuous brake and tracks are circuited. I believe that "Special movement orders" are used where unbraked stock has to be moved. In consequence, the safety requirement for the rear of a train to have a red tail light is historic - albeit that in sidings, typically there is no track circuit so the red light is required to indicate the end of the parked wagons to any further train entering the siding. Incidentally, the current rear tail light attached to wagons flashes red; the tail lights on locos, when on don't flash. Showing my ignorance, should a light loco have a flashing red light as well as its red marker lights? After all they do still have lamp irons.

I wrestled with this issue for a small freelance station I was working on. I think the key issue here is SMALL. Basically the road level needs to be such that wagons can be offloaded onto carts / lorries - possibly via a small shed either on the main platform or with its own goods platform for a larger station. The I happened to look at some real stations - specifically Hemyock (pictures) and Sheffield Park (in the flesh). Both use steps. Similarly where there are level crossings nearby steps are commonplace though there may also be a path down the ramp. But there are also stations where the road is level with the station entrance. Given the "landscape" and track layout of my model, I opted for steps. For freelance, it would seem to be a case of what looks right to you.

Having read davknigh's post then assuming Romfords are 10BA and Gibsons 14BA then as he says you would have to open out a 14BA threaded hole with appropriate sized drill then tap 10BA. You would need something to ensure the drill stayed vertical (ideally a drill stand) and clamp the wheel down whilst drilling. The only thing is that I have a rewheeled Tri-Ang loco with uncertain make of wheels - could be Gibson's or possibly Sharman's. The point is that like the locos I've rewheeled with Romfords, I've used the original Tri-Ang coupling rods and crank pins / screws.

Sorry if there is any confusion. What I tried to say was: If you can use Gibson crank pins on Romford wheels then logically you should be able to use Romford crank pins on Gibson wheels. My argument is that both makes of wheels must be tapped to the same standard as the Gibson crank pins fit Romford wheels. And thus the crank pins must also have the same thread. Metric and Imperial bolt threads do NOT mix.

For what it's worth, I use EMA Plastic Weld. Works fine with DC Kits, Wills Building kits amongst other things. I use a fine cheap (dedicated) paint brush to apply.

At the risk of seeming dim, shouldn't the Gibson wheels already be drilled and tapped to accept Gibson crank pins? If so and given that you've already suggested that one can use Gibson crank pins on Romford wheels - by implication then the Romford crank pins must fit Gibson wheels? The only query would be how they sit; whether there is a shoulder on either design of crank pin (and corresponding recess in the respective wheel) and whether such shoulders (if they exist) are near enough in size. Basically what I'm saying is that the threads must match otherwise Gibson brank pins wouldn't fit Romford wheels. Me? I've used Tri-Ang crank "pins" (well screws actually) to attach Tri_ang coupling rods to Romford wheels. A lot less faff than using Romford crank pins on Romford wheels together with etched coupling rods (yes OK I've done that too!). Good old British standards! PS - One of my mantras is that if it runs but doesn't look quite 100% it is still better than something that looks 100% but doesn't run.

Sorry for the delay in responding. It's mainly been steam locos that I've rewheeled - L1; Polly; Wills 94xx on Jinty chassis and such like. I have also rewheeled a set of clerestories by dropping in new Romford coach wheel sets to replace the original late 1960s vintage pin point axles. I recently rewheeled a pair of Trestrol bogies - these also required new brass bearings as well as disk wagon wheels (they had the old style axle rod with two plastic half wheel/axles rather than the later pinpoint axles.) Finally, I have rewheeled most of a Tri-Ang Hornby Blue Pullman by replacing all but the motor bogie wheels. [OK, chickened out with the motor bogie - I seem to recall someone did replacement wheel sets with gears for the Tri-Ang motor bogies but can't recall who.] Despite the crude back to back the unit does run happily on Peco code 100 much to my surprise. Now to try out my Metro Camel units - albeit the more recent (1980s?) one has finer wheels than the late 1960s / early 1970s one.

Generally having 2 powered locos running double headed under the same DC controller doesn't cause problems; I have done it many times. However, the old Hornby Silver Seal locos weirdly had loco and tender of opposite polarity. So if you tried to double head (say) 2 9Fs or 2 Back Fives, then you got a short through the old Tri-Ang style metal tension lock couplings. Also once, I got some very odd jerky fast/slow running once - I think with a Lima plus old Hornby steam loco combo. A case of the two motors interfering with each other. Of course with a decent length train, as a general rule, the front loco will pull the second loco which in turn will pull the train. So there shouldn't be any wheel slippage - unless the train is too heavy? Then again, I do also run HSTs with a power car at each end rather than power plus dummy.

I think you will find with Tri-Ang and early Tri-Ang/Hornby ~ Hornby that the back to back is also a problem. Flange depth doesn't seem to be such an issue. I have rewheeled some of my old Tri-Ang models with Romfords / Markits wheels to deal with these back to back issues.

I must admit I also use Humbrol banded thinner as and when required. A small bottle does last a long time and I also use a second bottle for brush cleaninng. Also when I've finished painting, I ensure the lid is firmly placed upon the tin then place the tin upside down for a day or two. This helps seal around the lid, reducing evapouration of solvent. I have tins still usable dating back to last century - including some railway enamels that seem to have been deleted from the range.

Sorry to butt in on this BUT (there's always a "but"). Surely the difference between having a single rectifier and a bridge rectifier is whether you get DC from half or the whole AC waveform. Therefore the CDU should charge to the same voltage but with a single rectifier / diode it would take twice as long (compared to a bridge rectifier) as half the AC power is discarded by being blocked. Using a bridge rectifier should only shorten recharge timings. Also AC voltage is normally described using RMS (Root Mean Square). Crudely speaking you square the voltage (making it poitive); Average it (mean) then take the square root to get back close to reality. What this means is that the peak voltage is about 1.4 times the RMS value. With a CDU this matters as the rectifier and other circuitry should ensure that the capacitor charges to this peak value - albeit it may take a few seconds to fully charge the capacitor. So at 16V AC RMS the capacitor should charge to a tad under 24V DC. Using a bigger capacitor, or two in parallel, will deliver more current to change the point motors and thus more power but will not increase voltage. Also using some point motor switches the CDU will initially try to set the point motors to their current setting before changing them to the required setting. Such switches use wiper contacts - I believe that the Hornby and Peco lever point switches are of this type. This style of point switch will partially discharge the CDU before the switch reaches the required point setting position. Personally I use push to make buttons on a route setting diagram.

I guess it depends on what Fatadder is trying to achieve. For flatish water then the Woodlands Scenic product sounds good - not that I've tried it myself. any years ago I made a flat lake using Varnish; one this coat to seal then a couple of pours to get depth. Problem was that the board was not level. So I have a nice flat lake with a slight slope (since "frosted" to look like ice in a winter scene). For the sort of water scene shown in Fatadder's photo, I'd go for the varnish route, building up thin layers. And also painting in water flecks as required. You might get a similar effect using Woodand Scenics' Realistic Water applied in thin layers - but as noted, I've no experience of this product.

I think they were a Dapol product fitting among other things their Airfix railway kits - now sold under the Kitmaster label. This would make the wagon part of the 00 Dapol range that Hornby bought. If I am right, there is a squarish piece that clips onto the mount to hold the coupling in place. There were also some earlier larger tension lock coupling with the same fitting. I note that the wagon is one of the Hornby batch that had the white stripe at the wrong end; the stripe should be at the end with the unloading door.

OK - I'll confess. Many years ago, I was having problems - specifically with a Dapol L&Y Pug that stalled on a Peco 3way point. The wheels lined up very nicely with the dead frogs. So I got some Hornby conductive paint for their Zero 1 system (designed to encode their "chips") and effectively shorted out two of the three dead frogs. The centre one must be left to isolate or you get a short circuit. And it worked! The Pug would now run nice & slowly over the 3way point. BUT you mustn't clean the shorted out plastic frogs with a track rubber - that will remove the conductive paint. Note: I have no idea how the electric pen ink compares with Hornby's conductive paint. But the Hornby Zero 1 product was designed to cope with loco current on an AC carrier feed similar to today's DCC supply.

Re Chimer's comment - you don't say whether the class 47 is Hornby or Lima. But the older Hornby locos do have very coarse wheels - just look at the wiidth of the wheel treads and compare with modern items (e.g. a £10 Oxford wagon). As a result, they tend to derail on current standard pointwork. In contrast, Lima equipment has very deep flanges but is normally OK on Settrack and Peco code 100 flexitrack; it runs on the sleepers of code 70 track. Unfortunately you can't just ease the Hornby wheels further apart as the gears are attached to the wheels on one side of the bogie.

For what it's worth, I have rewheeled the odd Tri-Ang and Tri-Ang Hornby (well Tri-Ang reboxed) loco with Romford wheels. They're a lot better profile and work a lot better with modern Peco Points. To cut to the chase, I used the old Tri-Ang coupling rods with the Tri-Ang screws directly into the Romford wheels. But the 0-6-0s have a single screw to the centre driving wheel whereas 0-4-0 and 4-4-0 have two screws per coupling rod. Unfortunately I don't know if, for the 0-6-0, the outer driving wheels were tapped or not; I only know for certain that the centre (flangeless) wheel is tapped to the same thread as Romfords.

For what it's worth, to uncouple tension lock couplings, I use a paper clip. Bend the outermost short length to be at right angles to the body of the paper clip. Then straighten out most of the rest except the central loop. The central loop acts as a neat handle and the bit sticking out at right angles at the other end fits neatly between the coupling loops to lift the tension locks. Then separate the wagons / coaches / loco and train. I find this a lot easier to use than the paddle style. Also it's significantly cheaper.

OK off topic - but rue_d_etropal you may not be too far off reality. My 1969 edition of HC Casserley's Preserved Locomotives notes that 4 of the Metropolitan locos still existed; 3 for engineers' trains and one (no 1 John Lyon) for possible preservation by London Transport. I have also annotated the book to the effect that one was stored at Parson's Green, Also I saw one at the Science Museum January 1973; this being before most of the Science Museum railway collection was moved to York and elsewhere. Sorry, I didn't record which particular locos these were. But as you may know, both Sara Siddons and John Hampden still exist, John Hampden being preserved by LT.

Is it just me? When I get a new card, I ring up anone who I have back orders with (e.g. Kernow) and give them the updated details. OK that's difficult / expensive if you're abroad but . . . I guess that you could send an email with your order no (nos?) plus the new start & end dates and the 3 character code from the back? I guess you could also include the last 4 digits also. Specifically you are not sending the whole credit card number (which won't have changed) over an insecure email link. But you will send enough for Kernow (or whoever) to update their records. Just a thought - and it not only helps Kernow / whoever with order processing, it also speeds despatch of your eagerly awaited item.

Very interesting, useful and slightly worrying. I too have used a Gaugemaster 16AC supply. BUT . . . My understanding of AC voltages is that they quote RMS (Root Mean Square) voltage. To explain. If you average an AC voltage then you get 0 Volts as it's positive for half the time and negative for the other half of the time. So you Square the voltage which gives a positive value and then average (Mean) it. But that gives you an average voltage that is way too high compared with reality. So you then take the square Root and quote that voltage as it is relatively meaningful. Now this results in an RMS voltage that is below peak voltage. Again, my understanding is that the peak voltage is about 1.4 times the RMS voltage (Square Root of 2 times RMS to be precise). Being simple minded, I just increase RMS AC voltages by 50% to get a rough idea of peak voltage. Which wold mean that 12V AC would have a peak around (but slightly under) 18V and 16V AC a peak around 24V. Note that the same applies to unsmoothed DC. This is part of the reason why CDUs are so good - they deliver at peak voltage while the capacitor discharges. You will note that my estimate of peak AC voltage is significantly greater than that of the Dapol "expert". However I believe that it is also true that an off-load transformer will deliver a slightly higher voltage than when on-load - something to do with voltage drop due to resistance? So the Dapol person may have been comparing off-load (low load) RMS voltage with on-load RMS voltage; not RMS with peak?

Having seen samples at Covent Garden some while back, these models do look good. However there do seem to be two issues here. Firstly an initial batch would seem to have arrived and been sent out; a second batch seems to be scheduled for September. This begs the question as to why two batches. Did LT Museum underestimate demand? If so then a price differential between first and second batches is to be expected - even if it is unpopular. However, Bachmann should be applauded for producing the second batch so quickly. Albeit this does bring into question the concept of a Limited Edition, On the other hand, if Bachmann only partially delivered on the LT Museum order then the price for both batches should be the same. And Bachmann should have used currency hedging to guard against significant exchange rate movements. Oops did I mention price changes? Mea Culpa.

Those latest pictures do look good, probably better than I could achieve. The traffic lights look like they could be 3 printed; where did you find them? Being very picky - well I have to with my handle . . . The cracked paving slabs - I guess that you may have used a black fine liner. If you could make the odd crack more of a break with the broken bit slightly tilted - then put a passer by stepping on the uneven bit . . . The "When Red Light Shows" sign should be in the road in front of the barriers - but given the available road width at the works site, I feel that it's unlikely that they'd bother with traffic light control. You need a bigger road works? Or ditch the sign?? The kerb stones look wrong to me. Firstly for most of London memory suggests that they should be narrower and longer. (I would estimate about half the width of a paving slab and perhaps twice the length? They are also much deeper - but that would not be apparent unless you had some paving repair work visible. Secondly they tend to be mottled grey and white (Granite?) and give a darker effect than the paving slabs.

Der. . . According to other posters in this thread, you can run the loco from the pantograph (haven't tried with mine - no overhead wire as yet!). So there must be a wire from the body shell / pantograph to the chassis anyway? Actually you probably could have metal sprung contacts instead of wire - but you still need the electrical conection. And from what I can tell - it's a paint job.

So the modus operandi is: Drive the freight train off the main into the reception siding under the wires. Take loco off track. Turn upside down. Switch to overhead. Put loco back on track under the wires. Raise pantograph. Shunt train. Repeat in reverse when departing yard? So much for hands off operation. At least with the old 25Kv TriAng / Hornby overhead electric locos the changeover switch was on the roof. Alternatively have a spare to do the shunting? But then again, does anyone do 750v overhead masts and contact wire? Looks like 3rd rail in the sidings and ignore health & safety?

As you say 47606Odin, the 73/0 had two sets of jumper cables whereas the 73/1s had but one. I had understood that a 73/0 could control a 73/1 but not vice-versa. Unfortunately I cannot recall my source and am happy to be corrected if mistaken.