Peter Bedding

Before JP finally closes this thread, I could not resist attaching this period piece from Honiton, LSWR. I would say that, firstly, the final decision to choose either loose-heeled or curved switches must rest with the guy who puts up the venture capital for a new range of track, and secondly, Mr Peco must have weighed up all of the pros and cons when selecting the design details of the Streamline system. If the proposed new system is to have wide appeal, then steam-era layouts ought to be taken into account. The longevity of early designs of S&C have been outlined above. My pre-grouping picture of Honiton records how track looked for a large part of the steam age. At the far end of the crossover, is evidence of tiebars between the switch rails; these are features of straight switches. Closer to the camera, the sharp lead-in to - and shape of - the check-rails are also features of the straight switch era. Aesthetically, and functionally, I see no objection to this form of construction. PB

Thank you Belgian for that input. Bridge No 613 (which label includes both viaducts) has attracted a lot of misunderstanding over the years. My sketch cross section may help explain. I have not got anything like the full history to hand, and I have handed over my personal archive. But as I recall, the increasing vibrations by the 1940s were disturbing the anchor points where the wrought iron pier legs were secured to the original masonry bases. So large concrete collars were constructed to hold each pier down. Much else was done then and since, but I have never seen any appraisal of the condition of these WI legs where hidden from view. Some form of non-destructive testing would be possible, but the end result would be the same. I would be the first to vote for a replica bridge, but we all know that cannot happen. A new bridge on a parallel alignment would be the best that we can expect. The bridge is too weak for future purpose, as is the political will. PB

.........and singers like Anita O'Day. "Jazz on a Summer's Day" is a Youtube favourite.

Many thanks Metr0Land, and such a clear piccie as well! I should ha' known better, measure twice before cutting.

Hello Roger, The exact sequence of painting events would vary according to each unit, but I believe that the standard roundel was applied from 1956 onwards, replacing the earlier livery which might have been either SR (Late Bulleid Green) or plain BR(S). Others may have better information, but I do not believe that the lion-on-wheel would be correct for a Southern EMU. Hth PB

Hello Bazza, I found the TCS board to be slightly wider than the factory fitted blanking plug, and in consequence one of the fits was a tight squeeze, and right on the upper limits for clearance. However, alls well that ends well, and I was satisfied to refit the respective bodies. It was the "goof-proof" warranty that attracted me to TCS, and although I have used other makes betimes, TCS remains my decoder of first choice. I shall tinker with the CV settings in due course. At present I am wheel chair bound with left leg, foot and ankle in plaster for the next 12 weeks or so. Even my slow progress can be slowed further! PB

It is a fact that there will always be some folk who need to snipe at a product, to establish their own bona fides. Sadly, ZTC is one such product seen as a soft target. I bought my 505 during a visit to Glastonbury (not via Goodwin Sands though) some six/seven years ago. I still enjoy using it regularly for two reasons. Firstly it does what I want, and secondly every time I that I do use it, proves the snipers at fault. I also have some ZTC decoders bought at that time. They work too. I have an Elite for use on our Club layout, but if I should ever have to replace the 505, it will be from the ZTC stable.

Chaps, Dissent does not come easily to me, and least of all in public. But on one point I will take issue. Several of our worthy Forum members have criticised the loose-heeled or hinged-switch-rail turnout which has been a feature of Peco Streamline since Pontius was a pilot. Now, due to my limited experience of life, I have always believed that if I needed to criticise someone else's product, then I would need to submit supporting and objective relevant evidence. And unless I have missed something here (followed by humble pie, sackcloth and ashes), that has been overlooked. My own experience of Streamline includes Codes 75 and 100, Electrofrog and Insulfrog. And in every instance, my problems have only arisen from my own ham fists. The product itself has always proved robust, reliable, long-lasting, affordable and almost goof-proof. So if they work, admirably, then what is the issue? As Martin Wynne has explained, earlier, on the real railway they lasted in significant numbers to the end of steam. Therefore from an aesthetic point of view they are acceptable for a high proportion of Bull Head installations. If someone is going to take on the task, of submitting a convincing case both to an investor, and then to a manufacturer, for a risk-carrying venture, then I submit the case will not carry the day if such strong feature of Streamline is completely excluded from the technical submission. PB

Thanks Martin, my over-simplified generalisation reflected ex-LSW practice!. But it helps emphasise the issue at hand. Do we need our "ideal" model specification to exclude a loose-heeled solution? Also, I have just seen a different thread on this Forum which is about a new product being adopted and marketed by Peco, namely a "Smartfrog". Depending on detail, this might well address my aversion to droppers for power-routing.

Hello Joseph, I like the way this is heading, and the progress that has been made. Even though the logical outcome might be for me to relay the track on my layout at a future date. I still have some personal issues, though. Firstly, I would not reject out of hand a model turnout that incorporated a loose-heeled switch, providing all of the other criteria were satisfactory. Acknowledging that loose heel switches were progressively phased out on the prototype in the first half of the 20th century, I was credibly advised that there were still secondary locations on the Western Division with them in use at the end of the Hitler War. Secondly, I would not reject out of hand a model turnout with an Insulfrog. What I would continue to reject would be a need to incorporate a plethora of droppers to achieve power-routing. CJFs little books of track plans showed sufficient positions to connect power to the track, and I still think the KISS maxim should not be lightly discarded. PB

I am most impressed by the ease that Martin can rustle up a Templot plan; it has been one of the particular merits of this thread. (Usual disclaimers!!) But Pacific231G has raised an issue that has not had sufficient airing. We all experience reverse curves with every crossover. And I make the point again, Mr Peco knew what he was doing when he conceived the Streamline range of trackwork. The only law that said my current layout had to be straight is that it must fit against a garage wall. (which has reasonably straight blockwork). My previous attempt at a layout (based on Bere Alston) included a lovely sweeping curve through the Platforms. PB

Well done Lifeboatman, A dialogue, however fragile, has commenced. PB

This is the first sound installation that suits my tastes.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that our individual sense of humour, honed to perfection in our youth, tends to decay with the accumulation of experience. And this truth re-occurred to me a couple of hours ago, when, as predicted by Ian (above), bits of expensive plastic went pinging past my left ear. The good news is that reassembly has hidden all the evidence of my sense-of-humour trial. So, to the news update. I have successfully fitted both of my 2BILs with 8-pin decoders, and both EMUs still work in exemplary fashion- on address 3 for the time being. Separating the two parts of the body/chassis required two pieces of plastic. (I used an O2 card and a Tesco Club Card as both were expendable). These two, and a couple of miniature screwdrivers as jemmies, and a whole litany of cussing, gradually eased/forced/cajoled the assembly apart. The whole concept of retro-fitting decoders seems alien to the manufacturers, and it need not be so. The second unit was more obstructive than the first, and it was with this that two halves of opposite corner lugs went awol. Once apart, though, all was plain sailing. (Even so I made sure that I had completed the first unit before taking surgery to the second.) I chose TCS as a preferred decoder some years ago. (I have no regrets, but it could just as easily been Lenz). The Hornby blanking plug slid out easily and there was just room for a DP2X-UK. Mount on the layout for testing - OK, then click the bits together and job done. I hope the following pictures convey the story. The body-less chassis (the body shell can just be seen in the foam cradle) Blanking plug ready for removal Dynamic test with decoder fitted. Ready for duty. It will be many a month before fitting a third rail reaches the top of the "Things-I-must-do" list, so I just have to claim Rule 1, and retire for tea. All in all a good afternoon, and thanks to the Forum. (The wonky platform canopy shows another job incomplete, but I shall blame the weather). PB

, Hello Earl. (By the way, what is the correct form of address for a member of the aristocracy? Should I start with "Your Grace", or just "M'Lud"?) But back to the 2BIL. Actually, it runs so well that I squandered some more pension on a second. (Both Era 3 Maunsell Olive Green.) So this afternoon, hopefully, I shall take the advice above, put the credit card to an alternative use, and attempt to carry out the high-tech retrofit. The results will be announced.

Halleluiah. Thank you, Gordon. And at Epiphany, too.

I'm sure that you are right, Martin. However, I believe that there are some other considerations, and that may mean "the market" accepting some details that have been rejected by some. In modern houses, space is even more of a premium than ever. The point geometry has to allow a realistic length for a cross-over. My choice is 3ft, and my garage/railway room must be typical. Also, the linkage between tie rods and switch rails must be sufficiently robust to allow a substantial operating life. (10,000 cycles would not be too much). And the wiring/changeover of the frog cannot be left to chance. And on this point Mr Peco Senior knew exactly what he was doing when he conceived Insulfrog. Whatever complaints have been posted here, no one has complained about operating life or reliability. And funnily enough, these qualities are near the top of my "essential requirements". PB

One, an 8-pin in the motor unit. I should like to hear how Forum readers have separated the coach body from the underframe. I have hesitated at this point, I do not wish to risk damage. PB

Except, of course, for those who model a prototype of 4ft 1.1/2" gauge; the target market of most r-t-r manufacturers. PB

I agree wholeheartedly with this, Clive. When I started to construct my present indoor 00 layout a few years ago, I had a blank sheet of paper (space was the only major limitation), and no other participants to satisfy. Reliability was probably my driving factor, appearance was only important to a degree, my track is mounted only just below eye level. (Much like the real thing in a way). It was always going to be DCC. So, I went back to first principles. "Keep it simple, stupid." I have one short wheelbase loco with limited pickups (an O2 built for me by a Forum stalwart). It is the only loco which hesitates on the insulfrog, so I know to give it a little welly at the right moment. It is only used in pull-push mode with a pair of brass coaches which are heavier than average. So they give it the mass to help nudge it across the break. All other locos are built to modern concepts, which is to say that they have multiple pick ups, and most though not quite all, are r-t-r. Any customisation is limited to repainting. All the track is live at all sections. I certainly do not put droppers on every piece of track for the sake of it, but even with a simple track plan many sections of the pw get connected. If anything, I wired in accordance with the principles promoted by CJF in his various track plans. Some sections of track only derive power through Peco track connectors, and they do not fail in practice. And frankly, this conforms with my expectation and experience. PB

Joseph has asked why our ideas are not "a goer". I would venture to suggest it is because none of us here are committing any risk capital to underwrite our ideas. The late CJF once related an anecdote about a situation which has similarities to the present. Throughout the 1950s there had been much froth concerning the errors and compromises of 00, and some radical chaps had proposed specifications for EM and EEM track and wheels. Mr Peco took this seriously, and started work on producing hardware for EM. Then along came a fresh group of chaps with some fairly harsh criticism of the other EM people and their recommendations, and proceeded to launch a series of ideas for yet another title, Peethree or some such. At this stage, Mr Peco was quoted as saying "they don't know what they do want", abandoned further interest in EM, and went back to the certainties of H0 and 00. Which is, some 40/50 years later, where we are now. I have no interest in veiled suggestions of a solution from the far side of the Equator. When it is in the shops, I can make an informed choice. Until then, the track I bought for MoF has some merits which cannot be overstated. Viewed sideways on, the worst errors tend to disappear. Viewed from any angle, it works reliably, time after time after time, and I could afford it. PB

I was having trouble uploading the two pictures (above) and found it impossible to insert text afterwards. Neither set has yet been decoder fitted, but they run well enough on address "0". Neither set was supplied with a joining link to make a four coach train. Has anyone else experienced this, or is the link a separate supply item ? PB

By a small engineering miracle, two pairs of 2BILs have arrived at their steam branch destination before the third rail:

Ordered about 27/1000hrs GMT Nov from Kernow by phone, delivered 100A1 28/1600hrs GMT Nov. Unpacked and layout mounted by 28/1700hrs. Every nice thing that has been said about these models appears to be justified, and a steam-outline addict has now accepted an EMU. I hope that Hornby do not rest on their laurels with this. Many thanks chaps for inputs to the decoder requirement; within reason it would appear that all normal 8pin choices will suffice. Another telephone call tomorrow. PB

After some months of procrastination (and a promise of Christmas) I took a deep breath and - this morning - ordered R3161 and R3161A. I now seek to tap into Forum reader's experience and advice for a pair of suitable decoders to retrofit. My only experience so far has been with steam outline, where my normal preference has been for TCS. However, I have been well-satisfied with a couple of Digitrax in my BWTs. But whereas I like to run my steam outline at modest speed, I envisage the EMUs in tandem running "Harry Flatters" on the Club Running Oval. The consensus so far seems to be to put the 2 power cars in the middle; is this still valid? Possibly the most influential factor to pick up the phone has been the neat appearance that captures the Maunsell livery, and Southern's EMU cab shape. Thanks in advance PB