GrumpyPenguin

11 hours ago, Night Train said:

I still dont get the Americans love of weighting incredibly heavy things using pounds? The video quotes 9-12 million pounds of steel to be removed. Surely using tons would be better? Or even washing machines.

There is a very simple answer to the at - our North American Cousins like to make out that everything US is bigger, hence using pounds instead of ton/tonnes.

14 hours ago, Qweqwe said:

What do you all think? Do you see the synchronisation disc and sensor ever becoming a feature that can be bought separately and installed the same way we do with dcc chips and speakers today?

Can be done via a decoder counting motor revolutions which would be easier to retrofit 0 no need to dismantle, upsetting fine valve gear & quartering.

For me, the biggist issue is not fitting the speaker in the smokebox - once your ears are attuned to the sound coming from the wrong end of the locomotive the effect is lost.,

4 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

In my view Kingspan & Cellotex are still far inferior products to the proper stuff. Your "only issue" comment shows that. 

It was not really an issue, once it was discovered that the Kingspan required both sides to have the foil removed or left in place.

There may very well be superior products available accross the water (after all, they are pretty good with wooden houses) but we use what we can obtain.

16 minutes ago, PMP said:

Incorrect. A sub 249g camera fitted drone appropriately registered and flown by a registered operator  can be flown within 150m of people.

https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/drone-code/where-you-can-fly

 

 

Well that means you cant "hover it over may garden" if anyone is occupying it then.

47 minutes ago, PMP said:

Could you please show the legislation relating to owning airspace 2m above your property. I mean actually owning it, I’ve never heard of or seen it in any property deeds.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/16/section/76

 

You’re right regarding environmental health, there may be a route through there. However, ‘aircraft’ (legally drone = aircraft) are exempt under the environmental pollution act, so it’s probably not as straightforward as a noise complaint for example. Private nuisance would seem to be a likely route, but potentially lengthy and expensive as it would be a civil case.

 

You say there are grey areas, previous successful ‘endangering an aircraft’ prosecutions range from physical damage to the aircraft, to influencing how an aircraft is operated, and by whom. So that legislation has been pretty effective when used. What are these grey areas?

 

For those advocating physical action and damaging/destroying a drone need to think a bit smarter. Some of them are extremely expensive, if you damage one are you prepared to go to court for potentially a criminal damage conviction? Also if a commercial drone you can be assured that the operators will be looking for compensation for damage/loss of earnings etc.

 

If it’s a nobber, do you think they’ll happily let you trash their drone and they’ll go ‘oh yeh never mind’ and just walk away, or might you find the occasional brick through your window, car vandalised, or yourself punched on the nose? Worth considering I’d suggest.

"2m airspace" - BT told me that regarding their cables over property - I think it's safe to assume that their legal people know what they are on about.

"Environmental Health" - comes under peaceful enjoyment of your property would think, does not have to be just/only noise.

"Greyish areas" - did you not see the image or realise the comment was TIC ?

One of my neighbours (#1) bought a drone (quite a pricy one AFAIK) & made it clear he would fly it over the residential area. One of my other neighbours(#2)  (whose wife & daughters sunbath in his secluded & walled garden) made it more than clear that if it was even seen from his garden he would need a trip to A & E to have it removed. #2 never flew it above residential.

At the end of the day Drone Flyers need to respect other peoples privacy & the right to enjoy their property without having to think about intrusion by drone. There are plenty of other places to fly them.

3 hours ago, Suzie said:

I just moved to new house, and noticed that there was an outside socket so thought I would get away with using the granny charger for a few weeks while waiting to get a more substantial charging system installed - but after moving in I find that the outside sockets are wired to one of the 6A lighting circuits! It did charge at 10A for twenty minutes or so before tripping, but some things are sent to try us.

I may be wrong here but I thought that the house vendor had to provide an "Electrical Installation Condition Report" - if that is still the case whoever signed off the report clearly missed something & maybe you have some recourse.

At least the breaker did it's job !

14 hours ago, PMP said:

You can complain all you like, it would be legal for me to hover my drone over your property if I were bloody minded enough to do so.

If anyone tried that sort of stunt with me I would buy one too - I'm not too good with radio controlled things and whilst practicing they may unfortunatly collide.....................

16 hours ago, PMP said:

 No one owns the airspace above their property. A neighbour could hover their drone above your garden day in, day out, entirely legally.

Whoever owns the property owns the airspace up to two meters above any part of the property/building/structure.

There are legal ways of stopping anyone "hovering their drone" above your garden - via Environmental Health for a start.

There are also "grey area's" too ;

Just now, Night Train said:

This foam is usually available from insulation specialists, although you might need to buy a pack of 4, or 8 pieces.

Most builders merchants stock it.

It's also worth looking for a bulk suppliers like "Encon" - they will almost give you damaged sheets that they cannot sell & it costs them serious money to dispose of it..

12 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Here they stock 'Kingspan' foil-backedfoam which is crumbly & useless for our purposes.

I disagree, I'm using it on an exhibition layout with 3 of 8' x 2.5' boards, mostly 50mm and in a lightweight ply frame, strong & lightweight.

The only issue I've had is where I've used offcuts for scenary & peeled off the foil from one side & it tended to go banana shaped. I suspect that it tensions during the manufacturing process & removing the foil from one side "relaxes" one side.

No issues with temperatures either - it's been in the box trailer in temperatures between -5 & +35 degree C, the woodwork suffered a little (as did the track) but the "Kingspan" remained stable.

2 hours ago, Qweqwe said:

Thanks for the reply, that seems to be an awesome feature! Is it possible to install such a system to other locomotives? Or is this system exclusive to these specific Hornby locos?

 

I’m specifically interested in the synchronisation of the sound with the rotation of the wheels on a hardware level rather than just calibrating the decoder without mechanical means to set the timing.

 

Thanks!

There is probably a little more work to syncronise sound/smoke using the decoder for reference - AFAIK the decoder "counts" the motor revolutions & works it out from there - accurate enough toi stop locomotives to with a mm when constant braking distance acticated.

The method Hornby use is probably more cost-effective for production models - not a new concept though - Fleischmann (& probably others) have used this type of sensors in their Tachowagons.

2 hours ago, Buhar said:

Also, especially with Hornby, runs are so limited that if you return a model there's no guarantee a replacement will be available.

 

Alan 

Maybe, that's what manufactures are hoping - modellers do their job for them - a disgraceful state of affairs (glad that I model European Mainland in that case). Over 45 years I've only had 2 x failures, 1 x Heljan & 1 x Brawa & they both went back.

Manufactures would soon up their game if they ended up with a a load of defective models & a lighter bank ballance.,

1 hour ago, ColinB said:

Yes it is all possible, but this is a £200 plus model, would you want to do this. You probably are going to either do some serious filing or buy a new tender base and bottom to fit the 4 pin socket.

All the time customers are prepaired to rectify faults/bad design some manufactures will continue to sell products that fall short of expectations.

The situation will (may ?) only improve when modellers return every single item that falls short.

1 hour ago, tigerburnie said:

I know of a drone being flown over someone's garden, that someone shot it down with an air rifle, the drone crashed into his garden, oddly no-one came to claim the bits.

The issue here is privacy - drone could be near your property but you have no way of knowing if it's camera is perving your under 18 daughter in your garden.

It would not surprise me in the least if "drone shooting" becomes a secondary interest. (Yes, I know, techically illegal).

4 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

Its not about a statement, its about the practicalities of  breaking down 1000km from anywhere and discovering that the only manufacturer that offers support within 500km  is Toyota. That's how it is down here. If you want to go seriously outback, buy a Toyota. British Leyland is probably nowhere to be found west of Parramatta.

 

And I'm not a Toyota fan boy, Ive never owned one but after 40 years working with both the oil industry and Defence in remote areas, I can tell you that nothing else is considered to be up to the job.

 

For making a statement parked outside your garage in the UK though,  a Range rover  would be perfectly capable.

 

S'funny, I never said anything about reliability &/or dealers but here we have a reply to my comment...........

& before anyone starts going on about the reliability or RR's** compared to LC's I'm well aware of the pro's & cons between the two vehicles & I'm not anticipating going "1,000 km" from anywhere. LC's are fine for hard work but there are not in the same league as a RR for the way they drive.

** I've had two so I know from experience about how reliable they are.

1 hour ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

 

The Toyota Landcruiser blew them away when it to came to reliability and capability- in that era only the insane went seriously Outback and chose a Rangerover to do it in instead!

Maybe so, but there is nothing quite like a Range Rover - you either get that statement or you dont (& that goes for most of the products that came out of Solihul, at least until recently).

2 hours ago, MJI said:

 

Very nice, but they are pretty basic inside.

Compared to later RR's they are, but far, far less to go wrong.

2 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

Some more from Monday evening's meet at Lilbourne...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My favourite aut of that last set is the very original looking 2-door Range Rover.

Thanks again guys, I'm aware that they should be barrow gauge but would prefer to stick with standard for robustness - it will only be a loop on a "Crossroads of Europe" layout so I can live with the scale inaccuracy as long as the track/roadway looks acceptable to me.

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I've never been an exchange tech, but I believe that seemingly odd voltage is to do with battery technology and it was the optimum voltage.

I was a tester once and one morning, we had a lot of faults for a particular exchange. We were getting inconsistent test results for them. Then I noticed my screen had a warning about the voltage, so I rang the exchange (luckily it still worked!) and asked if they were having trouble.

Yes, they replied, but we can't figure out why. So I told that my screen said that the voltage was 45 Volts, I think. Got told to wait a minute, so they came back 5 minutes later and told me that the power supply had been turned off and the whole exchange of 20,000 lines capacity was running off the battery all morning, which was quickly dying! The alarm had been turned off too!

 

Funnily enough, the exchange started working properly very quickly.

Am I correct in thinking that many old exchanges had two sets of batteries - one set on change & one set powering the exchange, then they would change over at intervals ?

At least the DC from the batteries would be a good as it could ever get (at the time).

4 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Amuses me when people jump to conclusions without considering the possiblity that their opinion based upon zero evidence may be wrong.

 

I have spent quite a bit of time around LGV's, mostly inspecting them and their drivers as well as working on safety initiatives to reduce LGV related fatalities. Time working at multi-agency enforcement and compliance stop sites gives me something of an insight to the issues, and the presence of satnavs is by no means universal nor does it guarantee things don't get hit as my experience of attending incidents has shown me. I could fill several pages of all the things I have had to deal with with LGV drivers, and various bridges around London that continue to get hit by lorries despite the magical satnavs.....

 

Here's what NR say based upon actual evidence:

 

Most of the vehicles that hit railway bridges are Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and buses, at a cost of around £13,000 per strike –costing the UK taxpayer around £23m in a year.

 

Our research has shown 43 per cent of lorry drivers admit to not measuring their vehicle before heading out on the road, and 52 per cent admit to not taking low bridges into account.

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/railway-safety-campaigns/wise-up-size-up/

 

So the idea that was originally put out in response to my post was that no one gets in their truck without doing their homework properly and everyone has a super-duper satnav is simply not true as trucks still hit bridges and other things, or get wedged in viaducts.

 

Worth repeating those stats 43% of drivers don't check the vehicle height and 52% don't take low bridges into account. I think the keyboard warriors are the ones in denial of reality that a significant proportion of LGV drivers are not as professional as they should be.

 

The proof is in the pudding......🤣 and the data.

We have now entered another drift - no matter how "HGV specific" a SatNag is, it's as much use as a choclate iron if the vehcile statistics are not logged into it.

All the HGV's I ever drove had the cab height indicators set at the maximum height the vehicle could be in an unloaded condition & the suspention set to normal.

Some interesting points in your post, however, I do feel that figures from "multi-agency enforcement" can make the issues seem to be worse than they are overall. You don't see many vehicles from the likes of supermarkets being pulled. The DVSA/VOSA Officers I have spoken to are of the opinion that there is no point pulling vehicles from certain big fleets because they always run legally, smaller fleets that "look tidy" (i.e. curtain straps tucked in) are also less likely to be pulled.

19 hours ago, J. S. Bach said:

Looks like there might be a High - Low range selector involved; possibly a two-speed rear.

Indeed - a switch or lever - on some Renaults you had to "knock over" the gear leave when in the neutral position to change the range - left for low, right for high (IIRC).

Some transmissions had a splitter to give you half gears - very rarely did you use all of the gears selected.

Thanks Andy & Nick.

Getting the trams themselves is easy (Roco/Lima HO).

The problem with using HO track with infills is that it looks just like - HO railway track with infills.

Hartel made some good tram track (although the joiners were not very good) but it'sd no longer available which is a shame because they did some really tight radius curves.

The supply of Tillig is a bit hit & miss - I don't want to end up getting a few bits hear & there.

19 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

If a building is Listed then it is a legal requirement to maintain it. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. However finding anyone willing to enforce it is a different matter. That sits with the local planners. They also have the power to step in and carry out repairs and then claim it back of the owner. However that is often easier said than done.

Not much chance of that happening in my area when you look at the state of some of the council owned properties.