Pete the Elaner

If it is an older sound-fitted decoder, it could be a Loksound v3.5 or v4. It may or may not help to know what you actually have there. What system are you trying to control it with? Can you read the manufacturer & model id of the decoder? ESU's code is 151. I have just read a 3.5, which is model 59 & a v4 which is model 255 Hornby's manufacturer id is 48 & the only TTS decoder I have is model 132

Thank you. I mis-read the Mk2(z) as a 2F Were there any 2Fs in these trains apart from the DBSO? If not, a Scotrail 2F may be incorrect anyway. Most of the trains were formed of Mk3As Oxford produce these but it sounds like the distributor has sold out. Retailers still seem to have some though.

Welcome to the forum. Most of these rakes were formed of Mk3As. Bachmann are planning a Scotrail Mk2F TSO but have not released it yet. I think the reason they don't release the entire rake at once may be to allow customers to build a train slowly, which many would find more affordable than buying the whole lot together.

I have never set it up in a consist. I think it is just a Hornby quirk, which is why I usually avoid them. It is nice to have 1 or 2 available to test oddities like this though.

CV29 = 38 CV19 = 0 It is a Hornby TTS decoder (& I know Hornby decoders have quirks), programmed with a PowerPro. I do not usually program the CVs directly but instead do it through the menu. When I access it this way, short address seems to be set to 3 but disabled.

It does indeed. I just tried it because it conflicts with something I found a while ago. I assigned short address 1 to 1 of my locos & can control it by using address 91 but not 0091 or 091. One of my other locos is numbered 0062. I can select this by 0062 or 62.

I am sure you already said that in post #16.

I don't think this is your problem in this case, but I had a headlight fail on my 87. It was not a LED issue at all, but when fitting a decoder, I had lost a piece of clear plastic which reflects light from the central LED to one of the light fittings. Even though this is a very small piece of clear plastic, I was hopeful that one day I will find it. I actually did!

86402 was a late repaint from BR blue, in 1989-90 I believe. I am not sure if this was the last one though. There may possibly have been 1 or 2 86/2 which were later.

I was unhappy with the shape of any commercially available bridge or tunnel mouths, so I bought a laser cutter to do the job. I am lucky enough to have a friend who can draw up the artwork, which saved me lots of time learning how to do it. There are some photos in my layout thread. Changes made were: The tunnel mouths I wanted were tall & skinny compared to anything available. Most railway tunnel mouths seemed to be taller than bridges, presumably to reduce the amount of smoke being reflected back at the train? Brickwork around the arches do not have bricks in line with each other. Each row has a different radius so the inner ones need less bricks, which gives them a staggered look. Hornby's brickwork in the OPs pic has stretcher bond. This was unusual when most railway bridges were built. English bond was a lot more common.

I use the last 4 digits, so I could get my class 50s & 90s muddled, but it is unlikely I will run both together. There is plenty of choice with 47s to avoid any clash with 87s. I also model LMS so they are 4 digits anyway. It all depends on what is meaningful to you. Running them on a club layout could be interesting!

According to Oxford Rail, they DID get the livery correct. It sounds like they used a proposed paint spec which was then changed before the livery was properly introduced & applied. Selling out quickly is not going to persuade them that maybe they should revise their colour & see how the updated model sells.

Interesting but it doesn't really say anything. The ECML electrification team could well have been appreciated because they kept to their budget in preference to building a reliable OLE system. Anyone not directly involved with a project enquiry will never know the details.

It says original so I am hoping for light blue. They were very widespread in this livery so I hope it will be a good seller. I also model LMS. Maybe we both need to bite the bullet & get our airbrushes out! I certainly need to do this for my plain black stuff because both Bachmann & Hornby seem to believe they won't sell very well & I to be honest, I agree with them.

Very good questions which I believe are not asked enough. Brian Lambert's website as linked to above has some very useful information. I can never remember my 'heel & toe' end when talking about points. They should be fed from the '1 track' end. Feeding from the other end can cause shorts. When connecting to another track, I isolate both & re-feed. For 2 or more controllers on a layout, I split it into sections then choose the controller from the section. This is often called cab control. So if you then run from track 1 to track 2, select the same controller from both sections then drive it all the way on 1. Once it has cleared from track 1, de-select it. It takes a little re-thinking about how you control, but preventing 2 controllers from ever opposing each other is something I consider to be good. & for your layout, I would add isolating joiners to both rails at either end of the green section & also to both rails at the crossover between red & black., then add a DPDT switch to the green section to choose which controller to use. You could keep the red & black sections permanently on their own controllers, but this means you would have to use one to drive the train into green then stop & switch controllers. You would also still have the need to speed match when running a train over the crossover between red & black. I would prefer the flexibility of also having a DPDT switch each on red & black sections so you can run a train non-stop from one to the other through green by setting them all to 1 controller.

I suppose...or is it just that was top of my list? You may want a level crossing & also model a cutting or embankment, but these 2 conflict each other because roads would be more likely to pass over or under the railway. Or you may just want to model something because you want to build it. Nothing wrong with that.

The APT worked without any need to turn off the tilt. The project was not all about the tilt anyway. This was only 1 of the 3 new features it was designed for, the others being improved wheel/rail interaction & being able to stop from higher speeds within existing braking distances. Its problem was that being pressed into service before it was ready had given it a bad image which BR were keen to wash their hands of. The APT was famous as the 'tilting train' so why not drop the tilt & re-use the good bits? Far from being put into the IC225 to 'save time', APT power car technology was used in the class 91 because it was good.

I can understand that. Projects in many industries often have to be falsified with cuts in order to get them passed, then to do them properly, they go over-budget. I have heard of cases where something has been approved but at a lower cost than what the proposal stated, without any consultation for this change. The alternative of 'if we do it like this, we can save xxx' is great for getting a project done but leaves you with something sub-standard. It sounds like this was how the ECML electrification was completed. I can also understand why 140mph running was dropped. Even if the signalling was upgraded, a 140mph train would catch a slower one more quickly. What is the point of maintaining a train for 140mph if it then spends half its journey times doing a reduced speed on double yellows? I am not as familiar with the ECML, but have been on the WCML many times on a service which runs fast (100mph) to Leighton Buzzard. This takes the fast lines as far as Ledburn (just S of Leighton) because it passes about 3 slower trains on the slow lines. Once at Leighton, 2 Pendolinos whizz past within 5 minutes. If they could move faster, they would simply catch up the 100mph service more quickly, so what would be the point of paying the extra for signalling upgrades & higher maintenance?

As above. What do you want to model? I find it useful to make a list of the things you want to do, then arrange them in the order of importance to you. Put on it anything you like. This should start you off. Here was mine: Model a real location Run class 86s & 87s with InterCity services. Yard of some sort: goods terminal or loco/unit servicing facilities Level crossing Tunnel Shunting of some sort Run class 319s Run oil trains Run MGR coal trains. Some of these would simply not work with each other, so I the most important ones to me took priority & I have crossed out the ones which would not work for me. You may notice that there is not even station mentioned, but the best area I could find which met my requirements actually has one, so my layout does too.

I remember being told once at Colchester (when the venue was at the institute there) that there were no road signs permitted for the model railway exhibition because the venue itself was signposted. Displaying a large banner on the building itself could be another option, if the building permits it. Anyway, it was another very good show. CMRA have never disappointed with this.

I think that is the work of MGR Hooper from this forum.

I had a less obvious one the other day. Supposedly from Google informing me that my password had been changed. I do indeed use Google for mail & also have an Android phone & tablet. It said if I was unaware it had changed, then there was a recovery option. Could someone have hacked into my phone & done it somehow since it was still working on here? I clicked on this & it asked me for my last known password in order to recover my account. This sounded my 'anti-phishing alarm'. I closed the page on my phone, switched on my PC & logged onto mail normally. The existing password worked fine therefore it cannot have been changed & the email was false.

That's a bit crude but will work. It is crude because although it will give the initial kick you need, ideally you want the current to drop to prevent a large 'back emf' being generated when you open the circuit again (the sudden drop in current makes the magnetic field around the coil collapse, causing a voltage (emf) in the reverse direction) Just adding a resistor to the input will work but this causes the capacitors to charge slowly. There are more refined solutions which are easy to build. Mine cost me about £4 each. (Capacitors are a lot more expensive than resistors, diodes, transistors etc). These are rewarding if you like electronic kits. Gaugemaster's CDU often sells for £14, is very easy to install & there is no chance that you have soldered a component in the wrong place.

Ballast is fairly easy to apply but getting it to look right is another matter entirely & how weathered you want it can very easily determine the method which works best for you. You will probably get several different answers, none of which are wrong, but they may not quite achieve the affect you want. I have heard several people who lay the track & ballast then weather the lot with an airbrush. If you want a very heavily weathered, uniform finish then this is fine & there is nothing at all wrong with it. Most track is a little less dirty, for which an entirely different approach is required. I believe it is very useful to lay small lengths of track onto off-cuts of wood & try several different things until you are happy with the finish you want.

I am intrigued by the bold comment. It sounds you are using the points to isolate the tracks from each other? This is not ideal although it should not be breaking controllers. Have you used any insulating joiners anywhere?