Regularity

Uncanny: it's just like being there.

Still, at least you found the solution to your perturbation... (One of my favourite films.)

Add more bays, and you have one level of Grand Central station in New York...

Louis 4? I think you are deserving of a X... (See what I did there?)

Yes, but it is the continent and (depending on exact location) century in which his mind seems to exist.

Another factor to consider is the impact of reduction in working hours, particularly with the extra time required for engine preparation and disposal, which could reduce the available time for engines to be ready, pushing early starts to a bit later in the day, and last trains to earlier, without needing too many engine crews. Of course, that further reduced the appeal of public transport, without subsidies, which would be paid by everyone for the benefit of very few people only some (very little) of the time.

That's all rather nice, Mike. One question about the side sheeting, based on ignorance (on my part) of the prototype, but 20 thou in 7mm scale works out as somewhere between ¾" and ⅞" thick. I presume that because of the bracing, this would not have been required for structural strength (unlike an open wagon) but would it have been that thin?

The big advantage of DCC in my experience - and this also applies to radio control (battery powered, or via the rails) is the ability to more easily simulate operations at a terminus where two or more engines might be active at any one time. Two particular examples come to mind. At a terminus, a pilot loco is used to move the stock of an arriving train to another platform, or maybe carriage sidings. The train loco would not usually remain close to the stop blocks, but would slowly move up the platform. This is possible with section switches et al on DC, but with DCC it is a lot easier. Shunting in a moderately sized goods yard, which also has to accommodate arriving and departing goods trains, is eased considerably as there is no need to move locos unnecessarily just to find a convenient isolating section, or throw a turnout against it. This also applies to arriving goods trains if there is more than one available reception road, or trains don't always fill the road(s), where an arriving train runs to us not determined by where the isolating section is, but by where is convenient. If only one engine is to be moved at a time, then DCC appears not to offer much benefit, but I would argue that if more than one is going to move, or there is a need to be able to "park" a loco wherever is most convenient at the time, then DC rapidly becomes constraining. That said, DCC offers benefits even on the simplest layout. Firstly, with a constant voltage supply, pickup is better. Secondly, even a small stay alive capacitor means that any dead spots (dirt, etc) are not a problem. Thirdly, the quality of motor control of almost all loco modules is as good as the very best DC controllers. Fourthly, it is possible to improve the performance of engines by tweaking a few of the configuration variables (not difficult, just fiddly and a little arcane if you don't use something connected to a computer). The last point is optional, but these all combine to provide superior running. For my son's train set, not that he is interested in trains anymore, we had a very simple system provided as a complete set by Bachmann. An oval of track, a siding, a few wagons and two rather simple industrial engines, to which we have added a couple of fumes (one of them mine) which have had basic TCS decoders fitted and also a "slave" controller, so that we could run two trains at once. The controllers themselves have the usual speed control, and ten push buttons for selection and functions. Press another button to activate selection, and select the loco/unit. Press the activation button to return to normal operation and drive the train. Lights, if fitted, can be switched on and off using the function buttons. Furthermore, one train can be left running round the oval and another selected for dome shunting. If a problem arises, hit the emergency stop. Wiring wise this really was two-wire: from the master unit to the track. Everything else used Hornby's spring clips on the set track points. (Aside from what came with the set, we used Hornby track, as it is better made and the joiners are tighter.) Whilst it is best and recommended practice to install a couple of heavy gauge copper wires under the layout and connect each rail to the correct bus-bar with a short connector, this all worked fine as it was, even on a double track layout plus goods yard assembled on the dining table at intervals. The current required here was small, and nickel silver rails are a pretty good conductor of electricity. At this point keyboard warriors will be jumping up and down saying that this is bad advice, to which I would say, read what I said: this is neither best nor recommended practice. But hey, it worked, and with such a simple set, there is no reason why it shouldn't work. Actually, it worked very well. Don: I agree that live frogs will make for better running overall than dead frogs, but then again so do finer track standards and compensation. In the context of 00 universal and a fear/dislike of wiring, then Peco dead frogs, with only a short dead section, are worth considering. Well laid, they are unlikely to cause much of a problem: back in the day before I built my own track, I found there to be very few problems due to pickup with RTR stock, and relying on the point blades to switch polarity whilst also not recommended worked perfectly well. In order of reliability of power-related performance plus looks over crossing vees I would suggest the following hierarchy. 1) On board battery power, or indeed clockwork(!), on whatever track is in use; 2) Overhead or third rail pick-up, with both rails providing a common return, on whatever track is in use; 3) DCC with stay alive capacitors, and a short completely dead section encompassing the length of the wing rails, most likely on handbuilt points, but ready made could be adapted; 4) DCC or DC using live frog turnouts; 5) DCC with dead frog turnouts, using a small stay alive capacitor; 6) DC with dead frog turnouts. Only number 6 is likely to cause any direct problems, and as I said, if the track is carefully laid, then although possible, this should not be a regular occurrence. I have not done (2), but am in the process of converting some locos for option (1) - at my usual glacial pace - and (3) is a hypothetical for me, but 4-6 are all within my experience, with the order of reliability as stated. (But I am talking about 100% versus 99%, in terms of hesitancy of running.) In short, live frogs are better than dead frogs, but as with everything, it is a question of balance: dead frogs are much simpler for wiring, and dead rails are even simpler and better!

I am, but only where my own efforts are concerned.Well, not quite. I prefer to see that someone has actually thought about their standards (in every sense) and set them, and worked to them. The consistency and careful application of workmanship are much more critical than the actual standards, although I reserve the "right" to not like them! Put another way, I would rather see well-laid Peco Streamline code 100 "universal" than poorly laid P4. A degree of springing/compensation can help with pickup, but the ideal is to pick up from as many wheels as possible.With DCC, however,the use of storage capacitors (stay alive and keep alive) means that dead frogs should not be an issue. Good advice. There are cheaper scalable options, based on things like the Sprog and Raspberry Pi, but these require more cost by way of understanding, which may be daunting to some. Also, some of the cheapest loco modules are not very reliable.

If you use "dead frog" points, then a lot of DC wiring requirements disappear. If you use them with Hornby's spring wire clips, to remove the "self-isolating" nature of the points, then other than a very small number of insulating breaks, between the curved routes of a crossover or the inner rails of a loop, then DCC becomes even easier. Depending on the source of the rolling stock, and its wheel profiles, then either code 100 or code 75 Peco is perfectly suitable if the track is going to be ballasted over the sleepers. Personally I favour hand built scale track, but it is not for everyone.

Build one, on top of storage space, and when you get bored with it, put it in the storage space, and build the other. Swap ad infinitum. This changes your dilemma from, "Which do I build?" to, "Which do I build first?"

Two questions:Why would you try to grow a moustache whilst sitting on a bicycle? Why would that make it fall over?

My brake was broken: there was a break in the lever.

Be careful with that book as a reference work. Some of the details, and indeed quoted dimensions, are the result of guesswork. As I once found out when trying to build a wagon from one of the drawings... Better bet is the WSP book.

Lasagne without spinach, had me chundering?

If you search through early trackplans, this arrangement was more common, but usually where the engine shed was somewhere else - the turntable at the end is convenient where there is a need to turn an engine, maybe top up the water and clean out some clinker, but otherwise not require the full services of an MPD, but it is a PITA otherwise. I suspect they were quickly dispensed with, but the SER and the LCDR were both short of money, plus even the longest journey from London to Kent isn't very long, and can be served as an out and back turn for the engine and crew. Also NBR, e.g. Rothbury.

That's just a fourgon conclusion...

Don't forget the arrangement at the original LCDR station at Sheerness:

For a prototype that small, I wondered if you were planning to simply buy the timber required to make a 1:1 model...

A Jones goods may be pre grouping but it certainly isn't French! And Mk1 coaches are neither French nor pre-Grouping. Depends on how many pedants are involved: it could be, "The Pre-Grouping Pedant's Weekly"... ...or even, "The Pre-Grouping Pedant's Weakly"... As I said when greeting a friend who had grown a goatee beard, "I know you think people are saying that you look like a count, but I think you misheard them..."

You live in West London, are an alter ego of Ivan Tan, and I claim my £10...

Although it may have been capable of a full turn, the "turntable" at Bembridge, as with the others on the Isle of Wight, was used as a centrally pivoted (and hence, more balanced) sector plate. Using it as a turntable would have been pointless as there wasn't one at Bembridge. In the case of Ventnor, turning the engines would have left the firebox crown potentially uncovered on the next trip up to Ventnor.

http://sulzertype2.co.uk/page.php?p=home

Absolutely. They advice came from, I think, an early Ian Futers article, where he mentioned that you had to be prepared to scrap the first half dozen or so until you get the hang of it.

Or run it at 4v or so - using a single LiPo to power it?