Philou

@ GoingUnderground @ Rob Hi - there was one other person on the ESU forum that had issues after the latest update - ESU's reply was more or less 'It's bust - send it back' which is what I'm trying to avoid - if I can. There is a reset - factory reset - which takes you all the way back to version 3_7_0. I would only lose loco addresses as I have no layout. I just use the ECoS to test and address chipped locos on a 1 yd piece of track - it's just the pain of uploading all the updates again. @ Rob I see you're involved on the H****y forum too. I'm Froggie there .

Soooo ................. arrived at the bottom of Page 110, Gordon has had Novovirus (sorry to read about the bereavement), he is well again standing on his own two feet ................. and so is Eastwood. Things are looking good for when I turn the page tomorrow . Cheers, Philip

Chums, Apologies if this has already been started as a topic - if it has, could you direct me there? Right, I have 'issues' with my ECoS2. I did a software update in mid-January to the latest version 4_2_2 and followed the on-screen instructions (no switching off before the message etc.). As I had no need to use it at that moment, away it went until yesterday when I took it to the club to run a Class37 that one of the yoof wanted to listen to the sound. It wasn't even powered up as I forgot the track lead connector. We did a work around and listened to the loco via a Roco Multimaus instead. This morning I chipped up my latest Class 66 'Evening Star' and wanted to listen to the sound and address it correctly. Plugged up the ECoS, waited for the intro screen and found that it simply would not respond to the stylus nor my phat phingers. It did struggle to respond to the paddle and button and just about got to the throttle screen but no more. Switched off and switched on a few times (as you do) and lo! a response to the stylus and my fingers - except - when you touched the screen it responded a few centimetres away (for example on the keyboard strike a key on the top row and a key on the middle row to the right would operate) - or not at all depending on its mood. So off and back on again - I was able to access the screens using the stylus - sporadically - and fingers. However, all to nought as it refused to acknowledge the presence of the Class66 - even using Railcom - nothing - nada. 'Aha' I thought. I exchanged the 66 for the Class 37 as I wanted to give a four-figure address. It knew it was there but refused to read the chip - yet the loco worked perfectly the day before. I have sent a message to the ESU site forum - but do you have any ideas? I don't want them saying 'It's bust' and I have send it back as it was fine before the update and I don't have a layout - just a yard of track to programme locos - rest of the time the unit is packed away. Cheers, Philip

@ Mike, I would have thumbed up your picture - only one rating per post unfortunately. Nice looking loco close-up and I have yet to see it in the flesh - it's been held for me until the end of the month. Thank you for the information regarding foamboard - I shall look into that once I get to the actual construction. @ Phil Mike is right that at present on #72, Ledbury and Pontrilas are orientated the right way geographically even though topographically things have had to be adjusted in order to get the gradients to flow. What is going for your plan is the turntable - it takes up much less room than a traverser and I'm going to try and work it into the plan. The downside to the plan unfortunately, is the Gloucester branch needs a tight radius to get back around and I'm restricting myself to a 1.0m minimum (better than Gordon's 3') that I have been able to maintain on #72. Additionally, where the branch passes behind Ledbury station, I don't think I shall be able to have easy access due to the reach and there being a 6' drop behind. Don't get me wrong, as a variation there are definite pluses - especially as topographically everything is in order - and worthy of consideration. Cheers, Philip PS: Bit of a bad day today. After doing the latest software update in January on my ECoS2, I hooked it up for the first time since to address a new loco - burger me the tactile screen would just not respond either to the stylus or phat phingers. After switching it off and on a few times, it struggled a bit with the screen responses being displaced in respect to the touch and once that calmed down it simply ignored the loco I wanted to address and wouldn't even talk to a loco that worked on another system at the club yesterday. Hey ho .

Wow Brassey, that takes me back years to my one and only pair of points (curved) that I hand made. It was (IIRC) stripwood, rather than ply, with cobbler's snobs (no, not snot, snobs) tacked into the strip and then bullhead rail soldered onto them using one Peco Rollagauge (which I still have!). All hand drawn on paper. I was quite happy with them - and they worked - insofar as my stock went through - but live frogs just beat me. I think I'd made them as Peco had only made (at that time) left handed curved points and I needed right handed ones. Needless to say when finished, Peco brought out the right handed ones - just like kits of 'rare' locos - make one, and shortly after there comes an RTR one !!!! I'm going to have to have a go at Templot - keep firing it up - take a look - fiddle around and I close it down again . Cheers, Philip

I'm at the bottom of page 85 now - and all is well. BUT I'm a little troubled by this word 'Bastille' that is popping up from time to time .............................

I was just pointing out what happened this afternoon - the track laying wasn't the best I have seen and your mileage may vary (YMMV) of course. I was particularly interested in running the stock on two curved parallel tracks as I have no layout of my own at the moment - excepting a module that is nothing but straight track. On my proposed layout I'm going down to 45mm centres as it looks far better, but it does mean there will need to be additional flaring on curves. Just a bit of additional info if it is of use: As pointed out above, the coaches are quite a bit longer than MkIIIs due to the overhang now created beyond the bogies - in real life it probably doesn't matter overmuch but our layouts are far tighter in curvature, nevertheless, on my module with parallel tracks at 45mm centres, with one coach on the 'main' line and another coming out of a siding on a Peco medium point (nominally 3' radius), there was just under 10mm clearance between the coaches. I can't tell you about anything sharper as 3' is my minimum - but that worked and I was quite happy with that - until what happened this afternoon . Thought I'd pass it on, Cheers, Philip

Wowser Brassey, that looks good. What track are you using? (or are they Gordon's? ha ha). I saw that Templot was able to be made full size too. Did you also make the rail-buffer stop? I like that! I can see that I cocked up my maths - 7° cant is approximately 7% for small angles and (depending whether you're modelling in 'simple' or 'fine' scale 00) a Peco sleeper being 7'6" does indeed give you approximately 2mm packing at one end. (It's 1mm between rails - oops). Now, as I was saying, as I am going to cant my track as it is rarely done or done well, I shall be placing, err, 2mm packing under the outer end of my sleepers ............... ahem. Cheers, Philip

Chums, I was at our local club this afternoon where I took my Class 800 to show (they're French and won't have seen one). As there is no layout at the moment due to a change of premises, I was able to 'run' the stock on someone's module. Very smooth running from the loco, nice discreet lighting in the coaches - thumbs up all round. I didn't link them together as I didn't want the hassle of undoing them again after 3 minutes display so I cannot attest as to whether I shall have or have not an issue with derailment and the like - we shall see. HOWEVER, what I did find was this: The club member's module had a section of double track which formed 3/4 of a circle (the end of a 'dog-bone'). The diameter to the centres of the outer track was 1240mm giving an outside track radius of approximately 620mm (2' in old money). The coaches would NOT pass each other in opposing directions despite the centre to centre spacing between the outer and the inner tracks being 67mm. There was only about 1mm in it - but nonetheless - be warned if you're thinking of running more than one at a time. Cheers, Philip

@ Junctionmad Good thought about slop and just plain ol' wear and tear - I'll need to think it through for if I go the traverser route the same would apply. I saw that there was an option in Scarm for printing out in full - glad you were able to put it to use. I now know I can do the same. Cheers, Philip Edit: PS - someone at the club had a module on which he was working. It had a double track 3/4 circle based on a 1.250mm diameter circle for the outer track - approximately 2' radius. The Class 800 coaches would not pass each other without colliding (about 1mm in it) despite having a centre-to-centre spacing of 67mm!! Be aware. I wonder where else I should post this?

@ Brassey Thanks for the heads-up regarding the goods wagon kits - as it so happens I have two or three LMS Ratio kits bought years ago. I had a look at my passenger coach - it's an LMS brake/4 compartment one. As it has framing I might cheat and paint it in LNWR colours (oh .... the infamy ..... the infamy ...... he's got it in famy!). @ Harlequin Noooo ..... don't shut up. A different idea can make one think of things that perhaps were overlooked - all thoughts are welcome. Insofar as board construction is concerned, it's going to be 10mm ply on 10mm edging and bracing with softwood corner reinforcement. It's going to be modular so that in the unlikely event of being invited to expose elsewhere, but more importantly to be able to carry out maintenance underneath (failed motor, dry solder joint etc) I can get to it without being on my back. The modules will need to be constructed specifically so as to avoid pointwork if at all possible. Gradients will be 'sprung' from the main board - something I was doing 50 years ago with fibre insulation board - then once started I may try the american method shown by The Stationmaster (glued and screwed plywood strip underneath) to prevent sagging. Where there is a lot of landscaping (around Ledbury tunnel), I might try open framework as the rest will be polystyrene blocks glued together but removable 'just in case'. Once section will need to be dropped to create the Leadon valley over which runs the Ledbury viaduct. I saw on Gordon's layout, the use of aluminium mesh as support - could be a good compromise by reducing the weight of plaster overall to create the landscape form. Cobalt motors with built in DPDT switches for the live frogs and maybe - just maybe - a few handbuilt points (00-SF?) in Ledbury goods yard. It may save a costly exercise in cutting and shunting Peco points in that area . I shall not be doing handbuilt track as I don't want to be giving it the time - the Grim Reaper could be just around the corner . Something up and running relatively quickly for me. What are your thoughts on the Peco bullhead track and points? Unfortunately I have about half the trackwork in Code 75 already in stock - but I'm willing to listen on this one. Club this afternoon - try out the newly arrived Class 66 (sound already fitted) and see the Class 800 in its glory and give 10102 a run too. Curiously, one of the yoof at the club wanted to see my Colas Class 37 (sound fitted) too. I don't why as not many went to France when the TGV - Est line was being built - wrong colour anyway. Catch up with you all this evening, Regards, Philip Ballasting? Don't know. I was quite happy with the traditional lay'n'spray'n'glue and I've not tried glue'n'lay'n'vac method - jury's out at the moment on that. Edit: Forgot to add that I shall be canting my curves - I think it's missing from a lot of layouts and I've seen it done well - it's only a 1mm strip on the outer sleeper end. I shall be canting each track and not the formation (the old fashioned way). I shall allow for that when flaring on curves with my 45mm centres.

Hello chums, Just got back from 150 mile round trip to do some unsuccessful 'shopping'. That's how far it is to a town that has Ikea, B&Q and Homebase all in one location - none of whom had what I was after. Never mind, Google will be my friend. I agree that the plan will cover all the points raised. I can see where Harlequin is coming from regarding both Ledbury viaduct and 'Dymented' taking the eye away from what is happening on the main line - a place where a bit of 'showing-off' of stock can occur. I don't for the moment have any cunning plan - I haven't had any 'bright' ideas at the moment! I did think of making the mainline travel through a wooded area (could be just as easily be some rural buildings) - instead of that - why not put the mainline on a stone or brickfaced embankment with another raised stone or brick structure behind (a shelved track if you will) with 'Dymented' in the foreground (I simply can't think where I got that idea from!). It is a branch line and by its very nature will not be that busy - there must some prototype somewhere where a small branch station is overshadowed by a mainline (probably more urban than rural I expect). With respect to Ledbury viaduct, the original is a very grand brick-built affair with 31 arches and about 5M bricks used in its construction - I shall only be doing around 16 arches. As the viaduct will be double track and is rising whereas the branch line bridge will be single line and on a falling grade and be probably a simple plate girder affair, I think the Ledbury viaduct will stand head and shoulders above the other one. In any case, the main viewing point will be from within the layout so Ledbury viaduct will be in the foreground anyway and will mask the tiddler behind it. In turning to the opposite side, I agree that there will an area that, from a mainline running point of view, will be rather devoid of anything but scenery - but so is the real thing. When in Ledbury town, all you can see overshadowing the whole town are the Malvern Hills (not quite, because you see the townscape, it is at the station that hills become a serious matter). In any case I have two thoughts about tunnels: Firstly, if you're going to do one and space permits, do a decent one (the one at Pontrilas is a really tiny affair probably not more than two coaches in length), and; secondly, Ledbury tunnel is the business end of operations, layout wise. It is no different than many other layouts (exhibitions ones included) that use a tunnel as a device to access the storage area. I'm probably lucky that I can use it to advantage, to: Make it operationally interesting (double mainline into single bore tunnel), roundy roundy maintained (especially for running-in or testing stock) AND it can be used to gain access to the storage area 'out of sight'. I'm still of a mind that #72 has got a lot going for it - subject to tweaks. One tweak that I shall endeavour to use is Phil's proposal for a big turntable - if not for the main storage area, one at 'Dymented' for turning whole branch trains around. The Stationmaster, can I ask - have I done the right thing in ordering a Bachmann 'Super D' in LMS but without the tender half-cab? It seemed to me to more correct from early photos of LNWR ones that I could see. If it is OK, I shall attempt to give it an LNWR make-over, but I shall need guidance on that when the time comes. Cheers, Philip

Hello Phil, No apologies needed - I'm glad you've made the point - I did say in an earlier reply that it was subject to tweaks. All the ideas that have been made, have not, as yet, been completely dropped. Once I get closer to starting the layout, I'll try to draw all the threads together. Cheers, Philip PS: Repointing: Don't like taking the render off but the finish is worth it.

Well chums, As you might have seen, I've been trying to catch up with gordon s's Eastwood Town - I have got to page 75 - that's enough for today as it's keeping me from attending to my own layout and things that I haven't yet completed. The low relief buildings will have wait until the weekend now. Things I have learnt over the last few days: Gordon has courage to be able to decide that things are not going to plan and scrap it all!! I don't think I could. Hopefully The Stationmaster will be proved right in that we have (for my proposed layout) a sound plan. I agree as I am keeping the trackage relatively simple - but I am doing gradients . I got to around page 65 or so where discussions were taking place regarding ballast and I must admit Gordon's was looking good (though too clean - not weathered of course). I thought to myself that my effort that I did on the module would compare favourably especially having tried the dry ballast + water and washing-up liquid spray + 50:50 PVA:water mix and washing up liquid. So I went and had a look - NAH!!! It's not bad but it has suffered from not enough care in laying the ballast absolutely level with the sleepers before wetting resulting in some places having definitive dips in-between the sleepers. In other places it looked fine. What does make a difference to my mind is ....... sleeper spacing. It must be purely optical as Gordon is using SMP/CL which has a UK sleeper spacing whereas I used Peco Code 100 with tighter spacings. Though I graded my ballast (sharp builders sand) to achieve a ballast to a UK standard (was) 2 1/2" to 1/2" stone size (approx 0.83mm to 0.16mm) (as we all know graded grains make finer flour), when laid between the closer sleeper spacings it looks oversized compared to Gordon's. I may have to consider finer ballast even though mine was close to the scale size. Builders sand is too brown but I did find on another test piece that overspraying lightly with an acrylic light grey colour gave a more acceptable result and gave the sleepers that washed out look. Sourcing ballast over here with the right look is nigh on impossible. On a very positive note, I have been able to test my 45mm track spacing (rather than 50mm centre-to-centre). I took delivery of the GWR Class 800 the other day and using the coaches, that have a major overhang at each end beyond the bogies, on a straight section there is just under 10mm of space between coaches on opposing tracks when one of them is using a 3ft Peco turnout and the other is on the through line. I will, however, now need to set up a couple of tracks on my chosen minimum radius (1.0m) to see how much flare I need to introduce on the curves so that stock cannot collide. Scaffolding is coming on Monday so if we have dry weather, I can start the re-pointing at the back of the house (change of plan 'I want my sun-deck this summer') and then the barn immediately after - so it's all going the right way at the moment. Cheers, Philip PS: I seem to be making out Management worse than she is ........ she is very tolerant, but there are things that really do need to be finished before I start the layout.

Doh! I got to the bottom of page 70 and I was lulled into a rather false sense of optimism that here we are - out on the golf course - the weather turns bad for the autumn and out will come the tools - yay! Noooo. Page 71 - tools alright - tools of doom and destruction for ET4. Is there no stopping you, Gordon? ................. 'sniff'. I'll try and carry on ................... BTW - I was sorry to see the loss of Mr Tetley. I only knew of the layout through this topic.

Having now arrived at the bottom of page 57 - I find that a new ET is about to be born - Aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrggghhhhhh! I still haven't gone 'forwards' yet to see at what iteration ET is - and I shan't (yet!). I have to say that I can understand Gordon, or anyone else, losing their mojo when on a project. Despite preferring to work on my own - I like the company of someone else even if it's only to tell jokes or have a cup of tea just for the motivation - you can get caught up in your own thoughts and if something does go wrong it perhaps becomes disproportionate. Or you've put a piece of work down due to 'other things must be done' and your mojo upped and went - I have a low relief building to finish - it's only waiting a few pre-printed footway slabs to complete and a bit of weathering and it's done. TWO months since I last picked it up - so I do sympathise. On the other hand, Gordon's work to date has now inspired me to get on with it and 'other things that need to be done' so that by the end of the year I can start on my layout too! Right-ho, that's off my chest ........... back to the tale then ................................. Cheers, Philip

Waaaiiiittt! Whoaaaa there. What happened? I stopped at the bottom of page 40 as we had visitors this morning. I turn to page 41 late this afternoon with an impending wedding on the horizon and suddenly ET3 is off the map being modified. What are you doing to me, Gordon? The Stationmaster did forewarn me that there was a Bastille Day coming along - so the layout went for the chop, eh? I read on ..............................

See? I said I'd have silly thoughts in my head if I was left alone for too long! Mike, you and Denbridge are quite right. Thank you for pointing out the difficulties and pitfalls. (Note to oneself - think things through first - leave the gun in the top drawer ) Cheers, Philip PS: I feel quite humbled having seen the trials and tribulations of gordon s and Eastwood Town - makes you think - but I'm rooting for him (only 117 pages to go!).

Page 30 and all is well .......................... so far ..................... Edit: I'm glad that some of your hard-earned trackwork was able to be recycled. If it's not indiscreet - why bin the plain trackwork?

Sold(i)ering on more like it! Ta-boom-tish! Trackwork looks so good too. BTW, did you keep your all trackwork or did some go to the tip? If it did go, it does seem a pity after all the hard work (and no doubt a singed finger or two). I shall now read on .........................

@ Denbridge I think you're probably right - keep the options open and run as you feel on the day. Thinking further, I expect it's good to have a continuous run just for running-in new stock. Cheers, Philip

Aaaaaaarrrrrghhhhh! Noooooooooooooo !!! Page 21 and Gordon is starting again ................ will I be able to read through to the end or shall I take The Stationmaster's advice and read from page 147 backwards?

I had a thought whilst I was doing something else - as one does. It's an open question to those who have been following this topic: If you will recall that we have arrived at plan #72 which overall gave the most satisfaction - subject to tweaks and details (which I haven't yet done). My thought was: Should I remove the single line link within Ledbury tunnel altogether and just retain the accesses direct into the traverser? Why? Well, it would prevent any train in either direction going twice round the circuit and retain more of an element of prototypical movement through each of the stations. The traverser becomes either Worcester or Newport - you can no longer go from Ledbury to Pontrilas in the 'wrong' direction (or vice versa from Pontrilas). 'Aaah' you will say, 'you have lost the ability to do a roundy-roundy.' Well, yes - if roundy roundy is more your thing, of course. Would the interrupted flow make for more operational interest? Perhaps I'm just over-complicating matters - as I say it was just a thought - as I could just make the two points lead into the traverser by default and keep the option open - wherein lies the temptation.................. . Cheers, Philip

@ gordon s Unfortunately I got way-laid yesterday evening so I'm not yet off page 14. I just wanted to say that I'm pleased that you have made a full recovery - especially as you're able to play golf! I shall read on with great interest tonight. Regards, Philip Edit: I think Jamespetts ought to be persuaded to read through too ...............

Yay! Thank you Mike. I was concerned that I had bitten off too much and time will tell no doubt! No, I'm going to read forwards until I get to page 151 (or it may be that by the time I get there!). I am now most intrigued ................ Regards, Philip