Regularity

Terrific picture: I love the way that historic arrangements can still be seen, even if they have been completely removed. Adds weight to one of my theories, that in many cases to design a diesel only layout, you start with a steam age layout, and reduce and simplify. (Thinking particularly of the reverse curve the 47 will traverse on departure.)

Ah, I see. I also see that I should have seen that before! Bit of a , isn’t it? Edit: Can anyone explain why a word that is enshrined in English law is profane?

Ah, you’ll be in a green shirt, then? The only way to completely preserve your identity online is to never go online... But at this point in time, the quickest route means I could be at your house in 3 hours and 9 minutes!

You still have 51 weeks. I left it until 6 weeks to go last time I built an exhibition layout. (Admittedly, it was quite small!) You don’t need to wear a badge: post a photo!

Here you go:

Yes, I see. But you still do not need an extra lever, as the trap can be operated as if it were a crossover connected to the double slip. You build your baseboards against the clock?

You really should: I would have invited you behind the layout so that you could have a play!

This is exactly what we were talking about, then: a bit of mock outrage, followed by abuse to show no hard feelings, but online it doesn’t work... For now, I am preserving my anonymity. Although possibly not very well. Who knows? Who cares? I am too busy chuckling about making an ass of myself over a misunderstanding with someone whom I had previously discussed that very situation... Exeunt, head spinning...

Ok, this does not go into any specific arrangement, but is a simplified demonstration of the general principles. Firstly, the outer (platform?) roads are both in use, and the centre road has the traps set “wide to gauge”: Now the upper point has been reversed, and the lower blade of of the trap has also been reversed: And finally, the lower point has been reversed and the upper blade of the trap has been reversed: Ignoring all other situational circumstances, including facing point locks, there are two levers in use to throw the points, and the requirement of the interlocking is to prevent both being reversed.

I think I need to produce a diagram to show what I mean!

My reading is that “borough” is an old English word used to denote fortifications put up to defend against Vikings.Not that it matters massively.

Gary, Rarely have I been so charmingly disarmed. Quite possible. If I am honest, it was this bit: The humour didn’t come out very well in written form. Actually, you make a number of fair points, it just seemed (to me, at the time) to go a bit over the top. But then again, now that I am feeling less “spikey” than I might have been a couple of hours ago, I can see how your remark could easily be spoken humorously. Ergo, I can now read it that way. I wouldn’t describe your modelling as bodging, either. (I have an irrational, almost pathological, dislike of the word: be proud of your work!) I suppose I can forgive you the LBSCR as it is where you live, and you do have some SECR interests... (I hope that humour worked!) In fact, I had a conversation with someone at the show on Saturday morning, before the doors opened, on the topic of humourous abuse passing as friendly exchanges for railway modellers, to which I added something to the effect of, “Unless it’s on RMWeb, in which case we all misunderstand things and people not involved steam in and take sides, making it worse”. If it was with you, then the irony will not gave escaped me... Not too dissimilar to me, except that I fear emoticons are overused, and I refuse to use multiple exclamation marks. I am trying to picture you. Did you have lunch with Adrian on the Sunday? If you did, then you both joined me at the table, which would also be an irony.

Good grief. You read far more into my post than was ever there. I even used an emoticon to show that it wasn’t a serious post. You are right to be proud of what I think is one of the top two exhibitions in the country (RailEx at Aylesbury is the other one), but if a simple remark that most of a post doesn’t relate to the ostensible title of the forum causes you so much anguish, I think you might benefit from stepping back and taking things less seriously. I mean, really, there is a thread for this exhibition and the post might be more appropriate there (I paraphrase, and add emphasis) is nothing more than a few words expressing an opinion and really doesn’t deserve the rather precious response you provide. Incidentally, it might be a thread you started, but that does not mean you own it, neither does it permit you to deny free speech, except on the grounds of inappropriate standards of conduct or language. Nowhere have I been abusive, nowhere have I been offensive. Nowhere have I done anything more than mildly suggest that most of the comment might be more appropriate/gain a wider audience somewhere else. I wish I could say the same about some of the responses. Behaving like a petulant child really does you, the exhibition, your club nor the hobby any favours. Or am I to be flamed for this posting as well?

I always thought it was 20s/30s, but may be wrong. Well, we could say that about so many things.I liked the pictures. I liked the exhibition - I was there for the weekend, but my comment was based on the fact that there is a thread for this exhibition, and the post might be more appropriate there, but also would gain a wider audience. A post in that thread linking to this one would work.

Actually, why not simply operate the appropriate trap blade from the lever giving access to the road? No extra levers required.

Nice pictures, but only one of the layouts is pre-grouping...

Am I right in thinking that where you gave used printed circuit board ties, you have removed the copper coating except where the tie plates would be? If so, that’s a very clever idea.

It is possible, but as part of the project creation, apparently: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79432-externally-operated-functions/?p=2477362

Plus 1 - in fact several plus ones - to that!

You might not be satisfied with that, but I would be - particularly once weathered.

I just tack solder at about 90 degree points, and use copper shim (2 or 3 thou thick, and I tin it on one side) for the bands. Tack the start, then pull the band around the boiler, and all it needs is a light touch with the iron, and move on.

You are welcome to disagree, but you are still wrong. You have taken something which has an interval level of measurement, and added an extra quality, that being continuous nature which allows for portions of whole parts, which in this case is nonsense. I bow to your knowledge of track, both real and model, and am extremely grateful for your gift to the hobby in the form of Templot, but please don’t try to argue with me over levels of measurement and the grammatically correct way to talk about them: this is something about which I am extremely knowledgeable and totally sure of the facts - no my facts, but the actual facts. You can continue the point if you wish, but you will only end up looking stupid. Mostly because I will simply ignore any comments from you as being vexatious. Besides, I was correcting the spelling of “meter” (US English) to “metre”, and then moving on to expressions of quantity. Had I realised that it was sold in yards, I would have made that point, but the use of less instead of fewer would have still been the subject of my (humourous, I thought - I certainly meant it that way) remark. Edit: autocorrect!

109.36 is an average, like 2.4 children. Averages are used so that you can calculate for larger quantities, say to cater for 10 families, you need to allow for 24 children. 0.36 of a sleeper is as nonsensical as 0.4 of a child. The point is not punctuation, but discrete versus continuous. That is what determines less or fewer. If something is measured in integers (ignoring arithmetic mean averages which are used for generalisations only) then fewer is correct. If continuous, then less. As an example, less water, but fewer bottles of water. So, sorry Martin, but it was still incorrect. Yards and metres are irrelevant to this issue. Sorry. Still failed...