zarniwhoop

Thanks for that, Gary. I haven't seen these before, and at near enough another £30 per EMU I'm not going to rush in, but definitely something for me to think about. Can't seem to find any user-experiences of these : for coupling, I prefer kadees because there is less to go wrong (and hence, I would prefer separate cables), but I'll look and think about it.

Cheers.

ĸen

Meanwhile, my fears about the couplings appear to be justified. I attempted to couple my first unit today, but now it seems I can't make a reliable electrical connection to either of the DTCs - rather makes a mockery of all the lighting. Actually, at the moment I can't even manage to make a reliable physical connection, but I'm sure I'll work around that. Just when I was getting ready to test a bogie change [ might work, might not - at the moment it's reversible, using good old blutack ].

I'm (again) getting ready to curse the designers who gave us all those interior lights and illuminated headcodes. Looks as if I might have to add pickups on each of the coaches (unless I can find any ultra-micro 2-pin connectors - everything I've found so far has too much sticking out the plug, I want a socket that will sit in the coach end, with the plug underneath).

ĸen

Been doing a little experimentation today with different bogies. The ones from Hornby's old Mk2 coaches are the same type for everything but those on the power car, and the trailing bogies, but have point to point bearings instead of the clip in "solution".

 

This has led me to realize why Hornby designed these bogies as they are. In order to utilize that connection type between coaches, the bogie has to have space in its frames to allow it to go round corners. You couldn't do this with point to point bogies because the frame at one end would be compromised by the shape it has to be. I'll put up pics a little later on to show what I mean.

 

[...]

 

The thought occurs that by using the MJT corridor connecter, but by cutting out the door, the MJT gangway may look more presentable than the Hornby one, HOWEVER I have a feeling the MJT end is wider than the Hornby end, which will require the windows to definitely be moved, otherwise the unit wil look cross eyed...!

Useful, but unwelcome, news about the bogies. Thanks.

For the MJT corridor - as I thought I'd tried to say earlier, yes it is wider than the Hornby corridor.

 

The gangway itself isn't separately moulded it seems, which is really rather aggravating as a simple replacement for one which isn't in the extended position could fix some of the look at the front end. The windows are a different proposition altogether, it doesn't look right and I don't know how on earth to fix it.

 

Unless I creat some sort of window etch overlay and change the position of the windows...?

 

EDIT: Hallo. New development. I was wrong, you can remove the door because it is a separate component!

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I can remove the gangway - does anyone make a better, more recessed gangway? I think that might actually solve the first problem with the look, the gangway plus the door.

 

 

What do we reckon - fit a new gangway and see if it improves the look? Where do I find one is the next question...!

I've already taken a razor saw and file to one of mine (after seeing the excellent hacksaw job at the beginning of the thread). Kept quiet about it because it didn't look wonderful (took a bit too much out of the front part, so needed some filler, then filed the rear and eventually found it would no longer clip in, plus it wasn't straight. Now in place, with filler and a lot of touch-up paint, and to me it looks better but not "best".

Oh, also had to replace on bottom "flap" (dunno what the right name is) - it broke off, so take care if you are tempted to modify it.

That's why I've said that this first one is a prototype (like all the EMUs I'm hoping to build at the moment: I need 2, 4, or more of each). I was going to say "no pics at the mom2nt" because I've been diverted to other things I've been diverted to other things (e.g. laying a conductor rail) and I would really like to find my bag of vents before taking more photos, but there's at the end to be going on with.

[ is it just me, or is attaching photos *into the text* really hard now ? ]

For the cab windows, I still think that it looks ok unless something with the correct windows (MJT, or prototype end-on photo) is nearby. So, at the moment I'm not intending to fit MJT ends (the painting of the side after filling it scares me to death) but I did buy some at the Uckfield show "just in case".

Of course, if you fit an MJT end, the gangway is sorted. I did look at fitting just the MJT gangway, but the window (for headcodes) would look weird with an LED some distance behind it, and fitting would anyway be difficult (the offset Hornby windows, plus the rails). Also, the extra weight from whitemetal isn't going to help the motor.

ĸen

PS - further pics will be in my blog, when I get back to it.

Hopelessly O/T but!

 

Ken

 

The 6-compt BTKs already released in olive are still available from time to time on ebay & elsewhere. ...

 

Apologies to all for going back about 40 years!

I meant those in BR(S) green (so, guess I should have said BSK - my bad) - I got a composite when I came back to the hobby, but the brakes were long gone. Would look nice for a set to about '62 (that's nearer 50 years!) for the Steyning line with an Ivatt 2-6-2T, but technically two or three years earlier than I really care about.

Returning you now to the VEP thread, this infomercial brought to you by "the colour is green" :-)

ĸen

I own a few of Hornby's Limby models with the new motor bogie fitted and whilst they are noisy and stutter on DCC, they perform faultlessly on DC. I don't have a 4VEP and with the current issues, I won't for a long time but I keep seeing posts from people stating the motor isn't powerful enough. These little motors are far from it. What these people are experiencing is a powerful motor not being able to apply its full potential to the rail head due to a sloppy arrangement of weight distribution, lack of pin point axles and traction tyres causing it to wheel slip.

*edit* - I managed to paste the quote twice : bad mouse!

For mine, it runs adequately when the motor has only a DTC ahead of it (now that I've sorted the bogie rotation problems for my tight curves). The running problem is most noticeable when it goes the other direction, and the motor has to push two and a half coaches.

As I said earlier, oiling the plain bearings helped a little (i.e. it can run flat-out without slowing (although it still slows at all lower speeds) and now no longer derails because of lack of leading bogie rotation). I'm intending to move to Replica B4s when I have enough of them (I've got enough Bachmann B4s, but they would foul the underframe). NB as I might have said, the Replicas are also "reversed".

Still ambivalent about the couplings - can't see any way to get one of mine to reconnect the juice for the moment, and I haven't found any alternatives (preferably, 2-pin) that are short enough to fit at one end of a coach (I'm already in the process of fitting Keen corridor connectors, so can't wire through the corridor, and anyway that probably won't work on tight curves at the end of straights).

I like the lights (except for the lack of interior at the motor) - and particularly when the corridor side is fixed, the end view (in isolation) looks ok to me, everything else is fixable - but the poor running out-of-the-box has dissuaded me from shelling out for a 5-BEL or anything else from Hornby (except, possibly, 6-compartment green Maunsell BTKs if those ever get re-released).

ĸen

Thought I would share my experience with my blue 4 VEP.

 

Out of the box when I first tried the unit coupled up its slow speed performance was very poor with very noticable slowing down on curves and pointwork and the motor was noisy. Also the trailng coaches seemed to have their brakes on! However, after putting minimal amounts of plastic friendly oil on all the free axles and greasing the cog wheel to the motor I found the unit to run much better after running in. I also took the precaution of running in the motor on rollers to avoid early stress on the motor.

 

After doing this the VEP finally operated to what I would deem an acceptable standard at both slow and higher speeds. It now has reasonablly smooth operation with only slight deceleraion on curves. Rather remarkably, it actually ran though the curved route of Peco code 75 medium radius points and double slips at full speed several times without derailing, although I will not be chancing my luck by repeatably doing this. However, performance was still very disappointing compared to the recent offerings from Bachmann.

 

Although there are numerous valid comments about the appearance of the VEP, I am not too worried about these because overall it is a fair representation of the unit in my eyes. Perhaps most people would have been reasonably happy with the product if it had had a better motor in it like the EPB & CEP from Bachmann?

 

I also found it very difficut to join the coaches up so that the lighting works. The connections in some of the coaces do not line up properly. I suspect that the system would not take kindly to continued disconnection and reconnection. I cannot say I am too bothered about lighting in coaces as it does not look that realistic to me. It would have been better for Hornby to have saved the money by not having lighting and spent it on a better motor.

Your comments on oiling are interesting - someone on newrailwaymodellers (damn - I've just blown my credibility!) recommended that. I've tonight oiled my first VEP with Peco oil (seems counter-intuitive to me when the axles run in the plastic of the bogies) and it helps, but only a little. When I "reverse" the unit (that is, run two trailers ahead of the MBSO) it still slows going into my 18" curves at sensible speeds, but less so than before, and if I run it flat out it appears not to slow - and, with the weighted leading bogie, nor does it derail. For the moment, I'll count this as a win!

Re the appearance, I agree with you - to me, the visible problems are the tiny ventilators (although, they seem to match the size of the vents on all RTR coaches - in any case, should be easy to fix) and the extended gangways - Simon Kohler seems to think these are accurate, but they only match the gangways within a train - as has been seen. modellers of skill can fix this with a hacksaw, the rest of us can bodge it ;-) Sure, when seen against a prototype photo (or an MJT end), the cab end doesn't really cut the mustard, but for the moment it's good enough.

For the [ expletive deleted ] connectors, I agree they are insufficiently robust - on my first (blue) unit, the second DTC no longer couples electrically, which (for me) is sad because I actually think the working lights look good - and a lot better when you can see through the first class compartments. I also suspect that the physical connection (what stops the train separating) is inadequate. Unfortunately, I'm persuaded to go with this lighting and I haven't yet seen any suitable alternative connectors.

One day soon I'll take my MBSO apart, now that the unit runs adequately, and see if I can come up with any way of getting the lighting current to the second DTC - and also look for places to put some more weight - unless kipford lets us in on his secret of adding 6 0z.

ĸen

On 2nd radius curves its crap and de-rails the driving cab bogies, its looks like the bogie swing is marginal. It also has the slowing down drag problems reported by others.

 

The only other thing done has been to add around 6oz of lead to the powered car to aid adhesion. I will post a write up on the conversion of the NSE one when it is done if anyone wants it.

For the bogie swing on tight curves - removing the NEM socket seems to help, although I'm not convinced that an unweighted leading bogie (of this design) will follow a tight corner at speed. In the as-it-comes version, adding 4gm of weight to the leading bogie is enough to severely disrupt the speed into 18" curves :-(

So, yes, please share your secret for getting that much lead into useful places on the MBSO - at the moment. I can't imagine where you put it.

ĸen

 

Weight is definitely one option, but it would be easier to simply fix the running of the bogies on the other three coaches. Their improved running would give whatever motor mechanism the power coach has a lot less work to do to get it moving.

Agreed - after happily running one of mine "forwards", I then tried it in "reverse" with 2.5 unpowered trailers leading (the half is because the motor is at the wrong end), only for it to derail at speed. After that, I tried adding some lead sheet to the end bogies (about 4gm in each). That just made it slow whenever the leading end arrived at one of the 18" corners on my test track, I then tried compensating for that by adding weight to the roof of the MBSO, over the motor (2p coins, 7 gm each, plus blutack). At 21gm I gave up because it wasn't helping - there is a limit to how much lead sheet will fit inside the MBSO around the motor bogie.

Unfortunately, my stocks of motor bogies and Replica bogies are inadequate - I've got a pair of B4s sitting ready to try [ hmm, also with the tension locks on the wrong end ], and a B5 (kit, need to find some wheels for it) when I can find some M3.5 bolts, but only one 12mm Beetle (or alternatively, one SPUD) - previous tests with Bachmann MkI coaches suggest a single motor bogie won't be able to push a train around my tight curves. Hmm, perhaps I should try a pair of 14mm Beetles.

More pressing, for me, are the fiddly couplings - my stock normally lives in boxes, and already I'm having difficulty coupling one of the DTCs so that its lights go on. Sad, because the internal ribbon connector is nearly small enough to use for coupling one coach to the next.

All along, I've viewed this as "easier than building my MJT kit", but its turning out to be harder than I'd imagined. Also, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence about any of the magazine reviews.

ĸen

 

The bogie on mine has got worse and worse with running in, and the traction tyres are the main cause of the problems. I've noticed that my normally clean rails have been made grimier than usual - glancing at the underside of my 4VEP, the traction tyres appear to be degrading...! With some minor blistering on the centre of the tread. Am considering a complete rebuild with a replica railways chassis as a last resort, I think rewiring it is within my abilities, just...

 

I think John's suggestion of using Heljan class 33 wheelsets will be a lot easier than fitting a Replica chassis, for the following reasons:

1. the Replica chassis has the same sort of [ insert expletive here ;-) ] NEM adaptors as Heljan locos - fitting the Hornby couplings to this would not be fun (and without them, you need to find an alternative 4-pole connector if you want to keep the lights.

2. the Replica chassis is somewhat tall (designed for the MLV) - most of the interior won't fit. Not a problem in itself (I'm doing something similar for a 4-CIG, with a black panel at the base of the windows, and skeletal seat backs : not finished yet, but I think it will be ok there), but in the refurb VEP you've got no curtains, most of the side is window, and you need to have supports for the luggage racks on the end of the seats. I suppose its not so bad if you drop the interior lighting (I still feel ambivalent about lighting, but it grows on me whenever I watch a unit running with lights).

ĸen

And when someone produces Cig / Big models will they please remember that the NDMBS on the first series (7031-41 / 7301-36) were on leaf spring bogies? Might be a pitfall to avoid there if they are going to use coil sprung bogies based on the Vep model

I assume that the phase I CIGs and BIGs didn't have a brake wheel either, since they had electric parking brakes ?

 

Ken, your way certainly gives some relief to the partition side like the real thing but I wasn't confident enough of making such long cuts neatly enough but again, thanks for giving the dimensions for me to start off with!

 

Should I post in a blog any future progress or continue on this thread?

 

That gives me a lol moment - I wasn't confident of cutting a series of rectangular apertures (i.e. windows) to look at all rectangular. But I agree, guidance from the mods would be helpful!

*edit* - after reading another thread where the 'report' button was mentioned, I nearly reported myself - but then when I read the blurb there it is only for "objectionable" comment.

Since Team GB put some effort in today and made me proud to be British, I thought I'd better put some effort in with my photos. No pics of what it looks like when reassembled, I've not done the corridor handrails yet (first coat of paint on the styrene microstrip was still tacky). I suppose the mods will object if I start another thread in the 'RTR' section, so here's the pics of my work in progress. Sorry about the grass colour, my olympus doesn't seem to like green in model shots.

After looking at these, you'll notice the standard is well below that of most people here, but once it's assembled I think it will be adequate.

Compartments, before painting

corridor side, showing my "quick and dirty" 'T' overlay.

and after painting (rail grey)

compartment side.

The purple for the first-class seats is probably too dark (railmatch crimson and rail blue, next time I'll use faded rail blue), but I doubt anyone will ever be able to see this. The walls above the seats are in the original blue - photo seems to have picked up reflections. Still haven't worked out what (if anything) to do for mirrors in the compartments - I certainly won't be adding luggage racks!

The white microstrip in the bottom of the last pic is to extend the footboards (is that the right name for them?) - the Hornby version looks ok for mid-1980s onwards, but originally some of them were a bit more longer (see pics in e.g. First Generation Southern EMUs).

ĸen

^^^

Great improvement to the corridor side of the first class section! Lucky you had an interior banging around but I propose to print a cutting template to the side and cut out the windows that way but I could do with some dimensions of the glazing holes - any chance of some measurements please, Jon?

One of my DTCs is currently bodyless while I hack on it. For the interior, I didn't have enough first-class compartments in my bits box, and anyway I'm dubious about my ability to saw off the whole corridor side without causing terminal damage to what is left. So, I've gone for a holes in each compartment, with a piece of 10 thou styrene.

On my Bachmann BCK interior, the windows and doors of both 1st and 2nd class compartments are the same width, all that differs is the width of the solid wall between them. The windows beside the seats appear to be 4.6mm wide, with the window in the door nearer 4mm wide. The dimension across the outer edges of the windows is about 20mm.

On the VEP DTC, the compartments are spaced at 28mm intervals (interestingly, the mid-compartment door on the corridor side doesn't exactly align with the compartment). I cut apertures 20mm wide by 18mm deep, then put on a piece of 10 thou styrene, cut as a string of 'T's - i.e. a 4mm deep band at the top, with verticals for the sides of the door. Mine are pretty rough and ready, but I really don't think anyone will be able to notice when the body is back together.

NB the seats were slightly 'distressed' by my razor saw when I cut the apertures.

No photos for the moment - I was sort-of thinking about starting a general VEP thread in the modifying-RTR section, where everyone could contribute their attempts to improve these, but this weekend I have bigger fish to fry. The before-painting photos were taken, but I need to manipulate them (CFD light - they are all sorts of weird colours at the moment). Meanwhile, painting the interior is at the limits of my ability - I've done the seats in purple, but it's a bit dark, and I'm not looking forward to the antimacassars (? the white bits on the headrests) and mirrors.

ĸen

To those that have them, has anyone considered how to amend the first class comparment walls? Or is it possible one for an etched frame replacement like PHD's "seating" for the class 150? Still trying to decide whether to take the plunge or as I think an NSE one will look good next to my NSE 2-EPB

I got as far as looking at the interior of one of my DTCs. I think the most realistic approach will be to cut out most of the solid corridor walls in each compartment (certainly, down to seat level) and then use a piece of 10 thou styrene to form new sides. The seats in the first class compartments look very good (as do the all-blue loo and sink in the toilet!), and I don't immediately see how to remove the interior for a more major replacement. New compartment sides will need a recess in one of the compartments for the fixing bar which is across the inside of the roof.

This is particularly sad because the "white" (actually, a very pale grey) on the corridor side looks spot-on and I don't think I can replicate that shade for a new corridor side.

For me, this isn't a priority - I'm more interested in trying to fill the gaps between the gangways within the unit (I hate passengers falling out ;-), exploring my options for the end gangway, and seeing if it corners better without the end NEM adaptor. At least the bodies seem to be very easy to separate, with a robust plug for the lighting electrics, so I think it will be easy to revisit the interiors.

ĸen [ edit: reworded - I don't want to encourage people to cut the *compartment* dividing walls ;-) ]

 

I'm dumbfounded, frankly. The air horn issue raised above is another eye opener. Are there any more? I was really looking forward to this release but I am not that confident a modeller to buy a £140+ train and immediately carve it up. Kudos to Gareth for his excellent modelling, and I'm sure a lot of other people will make those adjustments too, but for the price you are paying the 4VEP seems to have been overscored thus far in the mags.

As a casual observer, the air horns aren't as noticeable as the undernourished ventilators on the roofs. Strangely, those ventilators seem to match what is on Bachmann and Hornby Mk1 coaches (even the vents on the 4-CEP seem underfed to me).

Yes, there are a lot of disappointments here (the motor bogie in the saloon looks almost as bad as the Bachmann motor in one of the CEP bays), but the alternative way of getting a VEP is to use the MJT sides. Kudos to those willing to do that, but for me I'll happily go with this (provided the couplings turn out to be robust) and change what I think is necessary.

ĸen

I am keen to hear from rank and file modellers how they run on layouts. Is the motor man enough and can it cope with typical layout gradients? Does the unit run smoothly and across the entire speed range? How well do two run coupled together?

 

By way of comparison the Bachmann Cep and EPB models multiple perfectly and I can run 12Cep or 8Cep+2EPB fully confident that they will not fight each other and will do exactly as I demand with the controller.

 

In another comparison I find single Hornby class 153 cars, which have a motor apestion parently similar to the Vep, are good reliable runners but they don't like being paired and detest being run in threes. One tends to pull or push the other(s). They also cope with a single unpowered trailer but not three as with the Vep.

For the first question (I'm using d.c. and I don't think I have any way of coupling two units except by separately railing them and then sliding them together, which I don't wish to do, and anyway my test loop is only 5'x3' in old money) - one on its own runs OK, but it tends to derail at speed if the motorcoach is pushing (i.e. third coach in unit - the motor bogie is then pushing two and a half coaches). To specifically answer your question would depend on your gradients, but anything with traction tyres is probably not designed for gradients (and to be honest, I think gradients on 00 layouts are uncommon). The derailing might be ameliorated when I've found my back-to-back gauge, but my impression is that the end bogies don't rotate freely on my 18" curves (they can move back and forth as well as rotate, and seem to stick on my tight curves). For people with better curves, this won't be an issue, and a little weight on the end bogie sideframes might help.

Overall, I'm well impressed, and keen to keep the lighting even though itÅ› yet another nail in my plans to have everything easy to couple. As I wrote the other night, they *can* be coupled on the track, but in practice putting them on their sides is much more reliable.

ĸen, wondering how hard it will be to replace the 'late' stepboards (is that the right name?) with the longer versions appropriate to the blue VEPs.

Thanks to lapford34102 for that link - I've got one on order locally, but I figured it was worth making a trip for another one - the car needs to be run-in. Now that I've stopped cursing my TomTom satnav (it insisted on dumping me approximately where 382 High St *Chatham* would be, if it existed) instead of at the Chatham end of *Rochester* High St, I'll offer some initial comments.

So far, I've only run it on the 4' straight of my "test plank" (my main test track is out of use at the moment) so only a few inches in each direction, with some revving into the sky boards at the ends.

1. The cab windows look correct to me. I think I'll be able to live with the appearance of the ends after they have been weathered.

2. The couplings *can* be joined, but it seems to need two hands to keep both central, and there are no obvious points of reference when doing this. For the driving trailers, it is very easy to get them coupled at a wide spacing, with no electrical contact. It is *considerably* harder to get an electrical contact, and all too easy to get electrical contact but a physical connection that soon comes apart. The second of my driving trailers took about 10 minutes to connect, the first was easier. Much as I currently dislike interior illumination, it helps in checking if there is a connection and the colour seems ok - the area with the motor bogie looks odd, of course.

3. The driving trailers are "handed" electrically, at least mine are. One of the reviews implied there is a red headcode light at one end. On mine, there seem to be both white and red in each, BUT on at least one of my DTCs they only work correctly when it is at one end of the unit - if fitted at the other end, the red comes on when that end is leading, and I'm not sure if the white comes on or not. To be clear, when fitted at the correct ends (found by guesswork), the correct colour is shown in each direction.

4. Not sure if the trailer second is 'handed' or not - both its connectors look similar (and very different from the connectors on the inner ends of the DTCs), and to start with I couldn't connect either end to the MBS. After reversing it a couple of times, I managed to connect it and the interior lights were working.

No pics for the moment, too short of time.

ĸen

Although I agree that the issues mentioned are a worry can we really accept SOLID (!) corridor walls to the 1st class compartments?

 

Gerry

 

;0(((

No, of course not! That's why we're modellers - a piece of plasticard, or maybe even an interior from Southern Pride (I haven't used them yet, but it looks a possibility). And while we're at it, paint the bulkheads of the seating unit so that they're not that weird blue (and, maybe, the seats too) - based on the pictures in RM. I haven't ordered any VEPs - I was waiting for the reviews, and now I'm abroad on holiday - but I see no reason not to buy a couple (the red light in one DTC, white in the other, is silly but doesn't inconvenience me since I plan to have a roundy-round layout with proper headcodes / tail blinds or tail lamps). I can even just about stomach the weird couplings, although I might bin them!

And the "motor in the saloon so we have space for a DCC decoder" ploy really annoys me - like Mr BachmannÅ› CEP, why bother fitting interior lighting if you do that ? But the alternative is to use MJT sides. I've got enough troubles with my (first) 4-CIG using that approach, I'm glad that I now don't have to contemplate doing door hinges and commode handles for a VEP - that would make me even more mad.

However, this does make me wonder what sort of weird curve-balls Hornby will throw into the 5-BEL. But that is just a worry at the moment, and shouldn be speculated on in _this_ thread. Meanwhile, the price of the VEP terrifies me!

ĸen

Tide.

Never come across anything as good as a degreasing agent.

 

Clement Criterium silk tubulars. (Ask a racing cyclist if this means nothing to you)

Bernard

I'll see you, and raise you Alécy Criterium Tergals for time-trialling in the wet. Somehow,

I think that Soyo 45s (for the front in the dry) belong in the contra thread (punctured one

once on the Lewes bypass 10 course, it was shredded by the time I stopped).

Actually, I still miss riding my bike. :sob:

ĸen

My prototype photos are now at http://www.flickr.co...03/collections/ - if anyone is bookmarking, I recommend you only bookmark this page of collections (or an individual set), and not the individual collections [ there will later be others, not all rail/model related ], because I've discovered that if I accidentally add a set to the wrong collection, the only way to correct it is to delete and recreate the collection. Unlike when they were on fotopic, the 2008 narrow-gauge sets have been resized to a sane size for viewing, and the exif data should be complete.

Captions should follow later, but I've already spent far too long doing the uploading this week (/me really misses being able to use ftp to upload).

Share and enjoy, or complain to /dev/null B)

ĸen

I've tried it on an HO-scale building for a rendered wall : far too coarse, and then on an OO Peco concrete platform side - again, far too coarse. Mostly good coverage (I used a stiff glueing brush, some of the platform side needed a second coat). I can see uses for it on ground surfaces, which might fit what you want. For walls in anything less than S (at a pinch) or O scales I wouldn't use it. Well, maybe for rough stone walls.

For a finer texture, an alternative might be to lightly dust wet (enamel) paint with ground white pepper - not a very sociable activity, and you might need to wear a mask if pepper makes you sneeze! I've done this on an offcut of Wills brick in 4mm, and it seemed to work, but I haven't yet tried it for 'concrete'. Oh, you're using card - not sure that enamel would be a good idea there (might make it bend unless you paint the back) : perhaps thick acrylic such as railmatch would hold pepper, if you can find a suitable colour in the railmatch weathering shades.

Alternatively, maybe stick fine sandpaper on the card and then paint it. The fun part will be making sure the edges (inside the stone slabs) all stay stuck down. For all these suggestions of mine, if you are tempted to try them, make a test piece first.

ĸen

So I take it that the SME 3009 arm (Made in Shoreham?)and Shure V15/2 cartridge that I aspired to add to my Thorens TD150 in 1969, but could never afford, is now old hat? Shame.

Yes, and has been for some time, I'm afraid. When I bought a secondhand TD150 in 1980-ish the Rega RB100 was the business. SME still make very nice arms (in Steyning, but very close), but they're a bit too serious for me!

ĸen

From what to what? And on what?

 

steve (Rega P3/Dynavector 10X5)

ortofon kontrapunkt 'a' to "no idea at the moment". Gyrodeck, old Origin Live arm (their original non-rega arm - maybe it's called 'silver' ).

ĸen

Back to "rock'n'roll" for me (well, that's what we used to call it) - Aerosmith's first album. I've had this on vinyl since '74, and CD for a while, but now (upgraded the CD mains cable to silver) the CD sounds on a par with the reissued vinyl (the earlier copy is a bit the worse for wear) - /me feels a cartridge upgrade coming on

ĸen