Regularity

Likewise.

Fair enough. I have repeatedly said that it’s your railway, and that if you enjoy the challenge then go for it. I made a point of that. Not at all, but I think you have overinterpreted my comments.What horrified me was the thought that you might look at it and say, “Too many diamonds, it looks awful,” and then throw it in the skip. I just think this might be over-complicated, and that you were really onto something. If you want more track, then go for it, but if this is the response I get after taking the time to download, sketch and edit pictures, and then put them back up as part of suggestions, then next time you ask, you may get fewer alternatives put to you.

Not skinny, but by no means overweight.They would fit right into a Sandringham setting. Generally, or because of that picture?

Thanks for that: useful to know.Where in the U.K. can we buy it? It us not just the sounds, but the way they can be linked to what the engine is doing.

It was thrown into the ring on Saturday.

I am confused there: can’t see lots of tracks crisscrossing each other, and they aren’t LNER. I think that an unrealistic track plan is far worse than using ready-made turnouts in making a model railway look like a train set, and it would be a shame if you went to all the trouble of that extra work if it punctures the illusion of verisimilitude, especially as you have taken the time and expense to hand make your track to make it look good, and to reduce the “00-ness” of your track gauge that would result from using, say Peco Streamline. But if this is what was typically in use on the ECML in the early 60s, go for it.

Do you have any prototype examples, other than surmising it to be “quite likely”?

I just think it better to be honest and upfront about your reasons, no matter how small any commercial interest there may be - I am well aware that the way to make a small amount of money in the hobby is to start with a larger sum. Resumably in your expected market there are some GE modellers, who may we’ll be able to help with photos? Maybe it’s just me, but if someone is asking for help with making something for re-sale, I don’t mind if I know in advance. Openness and honesty are simple ways to deal with life.

So, to get this clear, although it might be a small run, you are a supplier looking for information about something you wish to sell? There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but some may be reticent about putting time and effort into someone else’s product, so this needs to be stated upfront to avoid the possibility of future resentment.

I was going to post and ask why engines could not be turned, coaled, watered and “ashed” prior to going to a road inside (for attention or stabling) or outside (for stabling) via the shed approach road, but Mike has provided a much better explanation of that process! I think you have hit the nail squarely there, Martin: we have all been making assumptions, possibly including Gordon. Firstly, the sort of conflict in movements you mention would suggest an MPD with almost constant activity, and lacking a certain amount of planning on the part of the shedmaster. If this level of movement is not going to be the case, then the extra complexity (of track) in the cause of simplicity (of operation) isn’t required. Secondly, we have not looked at relevant prototype MPDs to see how they were arranged. All that extra point and crossing work would cost a lot to install and maintain, and a real railway would do everything it could to keep costs down by spending wisely. Given a need to support an intensive service in a cramped space, then the extra complications might be justifiable, but from what I have seen generally this is unlikely to be the case. Can’t speak for every shed, but I get the impression - on minor LMS lines at least - that it was common when there were multiple shed roads for some of them to be allocated for repairs, and others for storage. Bit like our cars being serviced in a garage, and stored in garage. (The latter is unforgivable, as we all know that a garage is a great place for a layout! ) There would, therefore, be a degree of logic and structure to the use of the shed. I love the way that the complex track work looks, and it would not be too difficult to come up with justification for it (not least rule 1!) but I think it is overkill as long as there is space for the biggest locos (plus a touch extra) to get clear of the shed access turnouts without going effectively “off shed” by requiring turnouts to be thrown by the signalman, i.e. going onto the mainlines. Of course, Gordon, as its your railway, if you want the challenge of building and wiring so many diamonds, then go ahead and do so!

Worse than that, she was 3 at the time.

But an awful lot of frog juicers... BPRC requires no wires, in this context.

Why? SLW’s model will still be better, and will still sell to those who care about prototype fidelity. Bachmann, with the pressures imposed by mass production, will never achieve the same level of finesse as batch production to a higher spec and higher price. That’s not a problem for either manufacturer. When you look at just how good is the SLW model, the price is incredibly low, and represents excellent value for money. For those with less money, a revised Bachmann model with at least the correct shaped cab (we should be so lucky!) would do well enough.

Are you doing this for yourself, or creating a kit?

Didn’t it take them until the fourth release to get the 37 right? Or at least acceptable.

I believe that consist is used on the modern railway, probably as a result of the adoption of TOPS, which was created by the Southern Pacific.

I share your concern, the more so as when I was sniped on ebay* for a rare copy of a minor railway’s rule book, it obviously went onto the shelves of a collector of rule books, as nothing has been seen or heard of it, not even amongst those with a genuine interest in the Railway. My intention had been to scan it into a pdf file and share it, but that was not the case of the hoarder who bought it. But there is no way I can demand that anyone else do the same, no matter how noble an act that may be: if it has been obtained via legal means, it is entirely up to them what they do with it. * Not the best time to lose both WiFi and mobile phone signal!

That’s international in scope: no one wants these things in their normal parcels and mail services. Shipping by sea might be a possibility. The other solution would for some enterprising individual in Australia to act as an agent, sourcing batteries locally, and importing the rest. I suppose it depends on how much modellers in Australia really want them.

It is more likely to be related to WiFi approval. If it used radio waves in the gsm band, then all they would need to do is use a different ic to generate the signal, and approval would not be required. Unfortunately, there is as yet no agreed conformance standards for WiFi, and to ship to Oz, ProtoCab would need to be tested and approved by your national agency responsible for such things. This is not cheap. I am having the same issue with the rather nice diesel throttle being developed in the USA: it is simply too expensive to get conformity testing for Europe when balanced against likely sales, so it may not be available here. This is why trade negotiations are so important, and so complicated: if country A has more stringent requirements than country B, it will not permit items from country B to be imported. In retaliation, country B may simply say, “Until we have an agreement, your stuff can’t come here either.” I doubt if this is directly a case of U.K. H&S being obstructive (although that may be part of it - we do go a bit bonkers at times) but simply the cost of conformance approval.

That’s right.The individual members with detailed knowledge owe it to everyone else to systematically collate and organise their sources of information, digitise and scan it, and make it available to the whole world. And if they get specific enquiries, they should drop everything else - even their paid employment - and answer them immediately. Why hadn’t I realised that before? The GERS is in fact a very good Society in terms of sharing information outside of its membership, but they cannot order individuals to cough up the gen.

Havn’t printed it out for some time, and indeed have lost it. Must re-check! Ta.

I have used Crossover, after nasty experiences with Parallels. Since I only use it for Templot, I don’t buy a new one every release, nor every year: if it works, it works, and it is not one of their supported programs, so I have no qualms only over buying it twice in the 8 years since I gave up on Parallels. Besides, since Templot is free, it us but a small expense.

Hi Martin, I can use control-shift-F3, but not control-shift-F4. Similarly, control-shift-F8, but not control-shift-F7. As these are “paired” operations, I don’t mind using the keys to select the shift transition start point, and to then click on the toggle button for the paired functions to adjust the transition length, etc; similarly I can select rotate group with keys and switch to shift group. Not a major problem, as things go, and I would rather not be able to use certain key combinations rather than have non-standard key combinations that confuse should Apple’s arrogance finally get too much for me. (The Mac I use is now over ten years old, and only just starting to show its age. Turned out to be great value!)

With one or two exceptions due to key combinations already being allocated to other actions, yes it does work.The exceptions are nothing that should be laid at your door, Martin, and are simply a consequence of running Templot on an unsupported and unintended erasing system. Happy to put up with the odd conflict.

The answers have been coming quite quickly. Are you a member of the GERS? If so, have you asked on their forum? If you aren’t, why not join?