Pete the Elaner

I notice the goods shed has been shifted along to almost the end of the siding. I always question this. Unloading 4-5 wagons in a train requires shuffling them. This is a bit of a pain which is great for a layout if you like shunting, but a real pain in the real world where things needs to be done. Moving the shed along a little (which would be more typical from the plans I have seen) allows more of the train to access the goods shed by simply pushing it further down the line.

It does. I have looked at Newport Pagnell which, for those unaware of it, was on a small branch from Wolverton. The line was 4 miles long with 2 intermediate stations, so single track all the way. Newport Pagnell station had a goods yard beyond the passenger station. The platforms themselves held about 4 coaches, but fitting it onto a 15' layout in OO was about as small as I felt it could go without looking compressed, but you may feel it can be squeezed a little more. There was a book about the branch with some useful photos. It will be out of print but you may be able to find a copy if the station has any potential for you.

That attitude from the police sounds about right. A few years ago, I got off the train after work & witnessed somebody trying to break a bike lock with a hammer & bolster. Somebody was watching him, so he hovered around having a quick bash now & again. I stayed around to support the observer. He called the police & they insisted that they could not send anyone even after he replied "if you come now, you will catch him". The police station in MK is less than a mile from the railway station & traffic is rarely a problem. There seem to be some crimes for which they do not bother with.

Muir of Ord (just W/NW of Inverness) is on a passing loop & trains run on the right through the station. It felt strange but was consistent with the platform information signs.

I have not been there for years, but I used to live near Kirby Cross, in Essex. Services always used to call at separate platforms there too & the platforms/tracks look ok, so I am sure they still do. Most smaller stations like this are unmanned so it would be confusing to have most use the 1 platform then another unexpectedly used the other one without staff there to tell passengers to move across before it arrives. It is also good practise to keep operational lines in regular use where possible.

Another vote here for Gaugemaster. Their controllers give good performance throughout the speed range. Go for their cream coloured range. The black ones are feedback models, which are still good but some motors do not like feedback. They also offer a lifetime guarantee & you will not need to find your receipt for them to honour it. You can find used equipment cheap if you are patient. I found one of their handhelds for sale at a show for £3 last year. It was a newer model too. Their guarantee made this a risk-free bargain.

And also remember that red has a tendency to fade more noticeably than most other colours.

It looks right, but the resistor would need to dissipate a lot of power. V=IR P = VI = IR*I = I^2 * R R = 1.5 so R^2 = 2.25 I = 3 2.25 *3 = 6.75W. That is a big resistor, or a matrix of smaller ones. Either way, it is a waste of power.

I drove over the line at Mursley last week. I knew the track was in place but I also saw a red signal.

Why worry at all? Their geometry is the same, so no compatibility issues there. They are more reliable than insulfrogs. The only difference is that they do not auto isolate, which many view as a disadvantage but I do not. Having dealt with poor contact from point blades, I never rely on them to make contact anyway. I would be happy with a mix of uni & electro. Isolating & re-feeding after every point would make them operationally interchangeable & if I wanted the frogs live, wiring them would be exactly the same process for both types.

You have a DCC decoder in there. A blanking plate is just that; a small plug with some of the pins soldered together. If you are happy with the way it runs, then leave it in place. A DCC fitted loco can run better on DC than a fitted one. This may sound bizarre, but at low speeds, there is a very low voltage between track & wheel. A DCC fitted loco needs a little more voltage to get going, so this gives a little more push across the wheel/rail connection. A feedback controller or one with a pulsed output (like an H&M one on half wave rectification) can damage the decoder.

There are some times when a cleaning block is simply impractical anyway: Some tunnels are inaccessible. It is not always possible to build them with removable tops. Overhead wires are very fragile (unless you make them overscale). Running a cleaning block on track below them is likely to cause damage. I have also read that IPA can attract dirt because it is a polar chemical. Contact cleaner is designed to provide a clean electrical connection. Surely that is exactly what we are looking for?

I know less about the others but the advantages of the NCE are: It is popular. Many of us can answer questions about it, both online & at local clubs. I feel this is a very underrated point to consider. It is modular. With a Powercab, you only pay for the basic kit & if you want something extra (programming track, USB connection for your computer, upgrade to 5A), you only pay for the component you want. If you were to upgrade it to have the same features as a Powerpro, you will not be paying much, if anything more than buying the full Powerpro to start with. It is well featured: You can access 4 digit addressing, 28 loco functions, you can feed it commands from a computer or mimic panel. Like most things, you adapt to it; using the benefits & finding the ways around the limitations without actually realising they are limitations.

It is unfair that cars sometimes need extra 'regulation limited' components or expensive rebuilding. I understand and accept why the limits exist so would not like to see their removal, but it does show why the rules have become complicated. With regard to the Alonso/Russell incident, it is worth noting that the stewards did not accuse Alonso of doing it intentionally, but merely that his actions were erratic & therefore dangerous. It is virtually impossible to prove or disprove intent, so the rules are deliberately written to not require it. This is not the same as claiming the stewards stating it was unintentional. There is no need for them to get into a debate in what they considered his intention to be, so they will not comment on it. Not publicly anyway.

I think that they were making a point to their own team that their car is well down on pace.