stephens

Oh I forgot to say if you want to try this I would only attempt using MEK solvent or similar applied with a fine paintbrush. Good luck stephen

Peter well done for persevering. Just finishing off the 2mm one myself. No ladder handrails as utterly impossible. I’m trying cotton for the top safety rails. I’ll love to talk to the designer who put this together. There should at least be a health warning on the Peco website.

Sorry coming to this a bit late but hopefully a few still reading this thread. Commentary and reviews seem to ignore the problems associated with adapting the motor for underboard operation which involves fitting an extension ring and pin. Why they didn't provide an extended version as per Peco PL10e is beyond me

Thanks Steven. Yes printing at 100% (made that mistake before!) and the test sheet look correct

I have searched the forum and have yet to find any specific comment on the relative size of Metcalfe and Scalescene kits. I would like to use a mix of both on my layout but on a like for like basis you just cannot sit them side by side. A good comparison would be the low relief terrace housing that they both offer. From base to bottom of roof pitch is 34mm for Scalescens and 44mm for Metcalfe. In relative terms that is a massive difference given the buildings are meant to both be from a similar era. There is also a slight difference in window and door apertures but only 1mm in each case. Which is right? I guess this would mainly depend on what your view was of the correct ceiling height. Assuming a model ceiling height of 21mm for Metcalfe this equates to a very grand 3m - not really in keeping with a between the wars terraced house. If the Metcalfe dimensions are correct no problem - I will just have to rebuild some of my Scalescenes on a scaled up basis using my printer settings. If Metcalfe are too big Ill have to stick to Scalescenes and become a better modeller! Thoughts? PS Nerdy I know but on a slightly different note the brickwork on a Metcalf house equates to a brick length plus mortar of 375mm - much too big.

Thanks all. On the basis of the advice I'm going to try to create a lifting section and test it to see how well it works. If it causes running problems Ill take it out again and design my layout with a return loop at either end...

Newbie here looking for some advice please I have an area of about 11' x 11' (3.3m x 3.3m) and have constructed most of a continuous loop with 4'x2' baseboards. I currently have a gap of approx 2 1/2 foot in the layout so it currently has a sort of capital G shape. Do I: 1 fill the gap and have a duck under, 2 create a lift up flap, 3 keep the gap and have return loops at either end? I want to (probably) model in N scale and am worried that the gauge tolerances mean that the break required for a flap will result in derailments and other problems particularly if there are multiple lines at that point. A duck under is OK at the moment (Im reasonably agile and have room for a small work bench in the operating area) but I know others find this awkward / annoying. Finally I can accommodate 12" radius return loops in N but this means I loose some working area. Or alternatively do I go with a flap and work in OO....decisions decisions and I still havent decided on era! Any advice would be appreciated particularly from those using a flap in N gauge