Pete the Elaner

MERG now produce a 12v DC version. This seems to be more readily available than the 16v AC one.

Legomanbiffo already does.

If it is for a loco movement, this is better than running a light engine. It saves having to find an extra path & also accelerates the service. This was the reason 45637 Windward Islands was involved in the Harrow disaster: It was pilot engine for 46202 Princess Anne, which was more than able to cope with the train on its own.

When researching my layout, I was very surprised at how many supports there are & also with their placings. The area I am modelling is 150m long on the WCML, which scales down to 6'6" in 4mm. On the fast line are 4 pairs of cantilevers (2 of which are right next to each other) & 5 lattice gantries. On the slow lines, there are 4 pairs of cantilevers, 2 fairly close to each other, but not as close as on the fast lines. 1 of the other pairs of these is staggered. There are also 3 lattice gantries & 1 girder gantry. So for 6'6", the wires have 9 supports on the fast lines & 8 supports on the slow lines. This seems like quite drastic overkill but I suppose it is because there is a tunnel at one end a bridge at the other & another bridge partway along the layout. There really are some quite surprising features on the real railway if you look hard enough!

Full length would probably have been more like 9, but still a lot to fit on all but the biggest OO layouts. I have seen longer figures hinted at elsewhere but platforms longer than 12 coaches are not that common other than those for special services like the Caledonian Sleeper.

No, but I expect that in time, Bachmann will produce these in Anglia & Virgin liveries. I have read through the earlier posts about rakes & none are as I remember them. I commuted on these from Colchester in 2001/02 so was quite familiar. I remember them being longer than reported. There were 2 7 window TSOs next to the DBSO. These had higher density aircraft-style seating, being refurbished from declassified FOs. The first of these was the smoking carriage, so the others should have no smoking signs on them. You could mist up the windows with superglue on this one if you like. It would be prototypical! The formations were around 10-11 coaches, which leaves 4-5 8 window TSOs. Occasionally we would get a short set, which was around 8-10 coaches, I would notice this because I usually travelled in the less crowded DBSO & had to walk the length of the train in LST to get there.

Actually it can, but with with limitations which many would consider unacceptable. My home layout is a short section of WCML, recreated as accurately as possible. The scenic area is an urban cutting sandwiched between a tunnel & a bridge which are a scale 150 metres apart, which scales down to 6'6" in 1/76. There is no pointwork in the area but I was prepared to accept this to re-create a real location. I have run an 8+2 HST on there: It appears then takes up the whole of the scenic section before disappearing. This is entirely prototypical & I get more satisfaction from this than by having a layout with lots of pointwork & sidings. I accept that this would not appeal to many.

I see what you mean, although a lack of link to the layout thread made it a pain to find. The plan reminds me of layouts in my youth: Lots of track before dad fills every conceivable gap with even more, much of it from the bin because it was broken in the first place which isolated half the layout for good. It put me off the hobby for several years until I designed something with purpose. Careful design to decide exactly what I want to achieve & how I want train movements has helped me to build something much more satisfying. I am getting there but I am finding the results much more satisfying.

Insulfrog points should be ok. I am at the start of rebuilding an older club layout. It had about 16 Insulfrog points on it which had been weathered & ballasted. I would prefer Electros but cannot justify throwing away this lot. I am about to modify the lot to wire the switch to stock rails so I do not have to rely on point blades for contact, which will save time cleaning each one with wet & dry during a show because the layout crew are more interested in running their trains than they are with cleaning the track! This will also require disconnecting the exit rails because loco wheels are wide enough to touch the wrong rail at the frog, then supplying power to these with a switch. The above modifications are to add reliability. They are nothing to do with the layout now being DCC.

I am not sure standard Peco spacing would have helped. If placed correctly, the masts should sit too far back to fit in the 6 foot of 2 adjacent tracks, even with Peco's standard streamline spacing, which is wider than what I now use. Since you are considering a re-build, It may be worth basing your track spacing dimensions on where & how the masts will fit? There are sections of 4 track line which use cantilever masts, effectively set up as a pair of double track lines. The MML in London where it runs right next to the M1 is a good example. Peco's masts would be suitable for this configuration. The southern section of the WCML is a bad example because it was done before the 6'-10'-6' rule for spacing tracks was observed, leaving no space for posts in the centre, so many of the portals are lattice type gantrys which span all 4 tracks. Clive Mortimore's dimension diagrams have been mentioned. They are on this forum somewhere & are an excellent resource.

Having done OLE on a previous layout & being unhappy with the job I made of it, my current one is set in 1939-1948. Once done, I will be rebuilding the same location in c1990, which will need another attempt at making decent looking OLE. I am intrigued by your comment about the tracks being too close together? Could you explain further?

I was concerned about the shape of the front windows; the bottom on Hornby & Lima's OO gauge ones have been level which is not quite right. I took a close look at this one at Glasgow. The photos do not show it very well but the bottom of the windows angle slightly down towards the outside of the windows. For me, this was a deciding factor: If they got it right, I would buy one. Looks like I will have to find £600 now

Dave posted minimum requirements & in many cases, you can get away with these & the layout will work. You have stated recommendations which I agree with & use. From reading many threads on here, it sounds like minimum requirements are fine for DC but recommended practices should be followed for DCC. This gives a false impression. The recommendations you make are equally valid for DC & would produce a more reliable layout than not following them. I have followed these practices for a DC layout & it runs much better than its predecessor ever did.

PowerCab does have a backlit display. If yours does not then maybe it is faulty? It is a very modular system to keep costs down: If you want a separate program track then there is a separate board available which provides it. If you want to connect a computer then a separate USB board is available. If you want more power then a booster is available.

I remember being on Wolverhampton station in the early 90s & seeing class 58s haul MGR trains from the west through the station around the curve towards Walsall. Bescot had several locos parked in the yard. This was & still is a large railway civil engineering yard. Class 58s could usually be seen in the yard at Saltley.

I disagree with that. They made several models which can be compared side by side: Lima 09 had outside frames. Hornby 08 had incorrect inside frames. Hornby 37 had 31 then 47 bogies. Lima's 37 was a later release but this had correct bogies. Grilles & bodyside fittings were far more accurate too. Original Hornby Mk3 was too short. Lima one was the correct length. Lima HST was assembled squarely. Hornby ones never seemed to have the cabs put on straight & the underframes were less detailed. Westerns had massive differences but had their faults. Hornby Mk1s had poorly modelled B4 bogies. All Limas had Mk1 bogies which may not have been correct for more modern variants but they were moulded reasonably well. Hornby have taken huge steps forward now, but their 1980s diesel range was way behind Lima's.

Trains4U is nowhere near Peterborough station either. You would have at least 1 bus ride away at that end. I have found Anthony at AGR models in Leighton Buzzard helpful. I guess you have already been in to see him? I started off with a small end to end to evaluate DCC. It was about a yard long.

I thought that too. I spoke to Clive at ModelRail Scotland on Saturday & mentioned this. He feels that if you are happy with working as you are, why force a change on yourself?

I like that. A nice, simple modification. Kadees work well & are not very expensive. You will need to change your couplings & they come in different sizes. Spratt & Winkle also work well. These are effectively an upside down tension lock with a wire between the buffers. A spring holds them up & a magnet can release them. The method described above has the advantage of being a modification to what you already have, giving you have better compatibility.

Yes, a system like that should provide 5A. A loco will probably draw no more than 1A under full (stalled) load. Once running, they will draw a lot less current so a 5A system will go quite a long way. To answer your previous question, you only need 1 of those. It can be broken down into 3 components; a command station, throttle & booster. You need 1 & only 1 command station for a layout. Boosters are normally 5A. If you have a large layout, you would split it into separate districts, each fed from a booster but all controlled by the same command station. You can have multiple throttles (handsets) but these are usually capable of controlling more than 1 loco. More handsets would be useful if you have friends round for an operating session.

DCC does not limit you to isolating sections. I have seen it argued that you should plan these in advance of laying the track, but a movement which is not initially considered may prove useful at a later date. The real railway never kept things the same so it is entirely prototypical to run locos the way you never intended to. Even with all the extras like simpler wiring, lights, sound, double heading, acceleration etc., driving trains instead of the track is still the biggest appeal to me.

TTS has limitations but depending on what you want, they are acceptable. You cannot sync exhaust beats with wheel revolutions. It can only play 1 engine sound & 1 'spot' sound (injector, coal shovelling, compressor, spirax valve, horn etc.) I have not found this a limitation with steam but I do with Diesel. With a compressor running, this fades out for the horn then fades back in. TTS is effectively an R8249 with sound, so features such as advanced consisting are unavailable. The standard speaker is not great. The standard speaker can be replaced with something better. Richard Croft has done this & uploaded some videos in his DCC Sound thread on this forum & they sound pretty good.

If their previous release had looked this good, I would have bought about 5. Hopefully this will sell well enough for them to re-tool later versions of the class.

DCC allows you to change your mind about accessory control at a later date. I was going to control accessories the traditional way but I had a few spare connections which allowed me to change my mind.

You mis-understood. Modifying an electrofrog point has nothing to do with DCC & everything to do with reliability.