jamespetts

Excellent! I approve of live fiddle yards: the best kind of fiddle yards, I find.

There's much to be said for a spot of wiring.

Kadee couplings are available in 0 gauge.

I have a DR5000 but have not seen anything like this. Things that you might try, but I have no idea whether they will work, include updating the firmware on the DR5000 and re-writing the locomotive's address. Best wishes in dealing with this!

I notice that this video on Peco's channel about rebuilding one of the Pecorama layouts with Bullhead track has a track plan featuring single and double slips, and paper templates of the single and double slips are shown in the video.

Half-past four, I believe.

I think that I have managed to fix this with these locomotives: Varnished class 50s by James Petts, on Flickr 50033 by James Petts, on Flickr 500046 by James Petts, on Flickr The problem was, I think, that I was spraying from too far away. Further coats from a closer distance seem to have helped. I have read elsewhere on this forum that spraying this varnish from too far away can cause it to get cold and dry before touching the model, which would explain poor coating and the mottled effect, as well as a powdery effect that I had been getting in some cases. Spraying a little closer at 10-20cm instead of 20-30cm (very approximately) seems to have helped considerably. However, that is concerningly close to the distance where the spray is too close, which can cause damage to the decals and sometimes even paintwork. I am considering trying the Railmatch varnish instead. In the meantime, may I ask how others who use aerosol varnish manage with spraying distance?

Some empty jars of flux stacked with a hole in them for the trains to go through?

B and C seem to be good locations.

I approve of reappearing signalboxes. Where else would the cat live?

Are we missing the signal box again...? The turntable is a happy addition, however.

I recalled that I had previously had this issue which I had remedied by re-coating. I re-coated all of the locomotives with a second coat of varnish, with somewhat complex mixed results. The Farish 47s seem to have done well with the second coat, and both are now an acceptable finish: The London STANDARD by James Petts, on Flickr County of Hertfordshire by James Petts, on Flickr The class 50s are a little more mixed. Two of them still had significant shiny patches after the second coat: Glorious by James Petts, on Flickr Ajax by James Petts, on Flickr However, the more varnish that I apply, the more that I get a mottled finish: Victorious by James Petts, on Flickr Oddly, the finish on the other side of the locomotive was much better: Victorious by James Petts, on Flickr This, I think, was a locomotive on which I had been concerned that I had sprayed too much varnish (or, rather, sprayed it too close). After a problem with a Farish 47 when I first started doing this where spraying too close caused white blooming and damaged the numbers, I have been very careful to spray a good distance (20-30cm) from the model, but I wonder whether this is causing the droplets of varnish to be larger by the time that they reach the model, or perhaps more uneven? The two pictured above I have set aside for a final coat, but the others I consider complete - there are one or two borderline cases, but the shine on the others is as good as gone. So, the ultimate conclusion is that, with the Citadel varnish, it is possible to get a good result, but under somewhat unpredictable conditions, and the chances of ruining the model seem to be potentially excessive: the boundary between not enough to cover the shine and enough to cause white blooming/a mottled look/possible transfer damage seems to be very narrow. I did order a can of Testor's Dullcoat, but unfortunately I seem to have been sent Clearcoat instead, which I assume is a gloss varnish. I will keep this rather than sending it back as it might be useful one day. Do people think that it is worth sending for real Dullcoat from another vendor, or are there better varnishes for future projects? Edit: I have just re-sprayed the two that still had the shiny patches, spraying more closely at circa 10-20cm on this occasion. This seems to have improved things greatly: there are no more shiny patches, and the mottled/grainy look seems to have gone. I will post pictures later in the week when I have had a chance to remove all the Maskol.

Would there perhaps not be a third road carriage siding? I am not entirely sure - perhaps you need to consult plans of small terminus stations to see whether this makes sense. Have you looked at plans of such things so far, incidentally? As to this signalbox, this is a happy addition indeed. As we all know, every good signalbox has a cat. Will this cat be having kittens?

There is much to be said a spot of Bullheadery, although I do not believe that Peco have a Bullhead tandem planned...?

The plans seem to be missing the signal box kittens...?

No. Not even slightly.

Thank you both for your replies. I had no problems with white patches, just the lack of removal of gloss. I will have a go with another coat of my existing varnish, as it has been remarked that multiple coats may be necessary to remove the shine, but I have also ordered some Testors as advised. I have a Bench Vent and a face mask (the proper one that looks rather like a gas mask), so the odour will hopefully not be a problem. Half-full - if I were to re-coat with gloss, would a brush finish of gloss suffice, or would this also need to be sprayed?

Thank you all for your thoughts. I do not have an airbrush. Given that I have already varnished all of these locomotives, what options are there left - might applying a second coat of the Citadel varnish assist, or would this result in too thick a coat of varnish?

Yes - I do have a BenchVent and a non-porous table cloth for the purpose; this takes a long time to set up, so I try to varnish and spray paint in large batches.

I did consider using brush-on varnish, but this does not give an even enough finish.

I have been having a spot of bother with varnish to-day. I had re-numbered some Dapol N gauge class 50s (and some Farish class 47s) a while ago, but had not until to-day applied the final coat of matt varnish to seal in the transfers and hide the shiny areas caused by the Brasso that I used to remove the original names and numbers. I have done this in the past with good effect, but, this afternoon/evening, it seems not to have worked well: the shinyness from the Brasso number removal shows through the varnish on all the models. I use Games Workshop Citadel Munitorium varnish (aerosol can with a Bench Vent), which I have used before (although I am not sure whether this is the very can that I have used before: there are two cans in my flammable liquids cabinet and I have not done any varnishing for at least a year). Here are some pictures of the locomotives after varnishing at the angle to show the shine showing through: Dapol class 50 by James Petts, on Flickr Dapol class 50 by James Petts, on Flickr Farish calss 47 by James Petts, on Flickr Dapol class 50 by James Petts, on Flickr Might I be doing something wrong - or have I just not used enough? Or should I really be using another type of varnish? Assistance would be appreciated.

Excellent! I am glad that these are working for you. The actual Hornby one will be better, I am sure, but I believe that quite a few of these models remain unsold (I am considering buying another one at a good price), so I suspect that Hornby will not be issuing a re-release of this class in olive green any time soon. As to the high sided tender, I believe that I have seen a picture from circa 1939 of a Lord Nelson with the olive green livery and the high sided tender, so I am not sure that it is strictly wrong, but I imagine that they will not have been in this condition for long. I am not sure whether 861 ever carried this combination, however.

Gosh, that is a speedy build.

If one is wishlisting Mk. 1 catering vehicles, an RBR would be a delight - but this is rather in the land of clouds for the reasonably foreseeable future, I fear.

No, it is definitely abusive. There is no conceivable justification for such reprehensible behaviour.