Pete the Elaner

Welcome to the forum. Words frequently get twisted on here & it is very common for someone to quote 1 line of a statement & disagree with it. If you can cope with that, there is a lot of useful knowledge available. Railcom uses .ini files??? They are a bit old but at least they allow you to configure some things using text files. Regarding the variety of modern motive power, there are manufacturers other than Hornby: Between them, Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan & Hornby produce most diesels. You mention the 47: This has been produced relatively recently by Heljan, Bachmann & ViTrains. Relative that is compared to Hornby's Railroad which is an ex-Lima tooling from the 1980s. I am sure this is why Hornby have not produced a modern, high quality class 47. I am only 2 years older than you & model steam as well as BR sector period, so I get to see things from both sides. There are larger gaps in the steam market because it lasted so much longer. There are a lot more diesel & electric layouts than there used to be & I agree with you that this trend will continue but we will not see steam layouts disappear completely. As for TTS: There have been a lot of negative comments on here about it. I really think this is harsh because it is a budget set of decoders at a budget price. It fill a gap in the market very nicely, offering sound to many more modellers that who would otherwise afford it. Manufacturers base their products on expected sales, not a forum which represents a minority of their customers. Only Hornby will know what their plans are for TTS in the near future. I actually think Hornby are serving our market quite well. I will be interested to see what they plan to release.

"Whether you can get away with airbrushing depends on the standard of your airbrushing & also exactly the condition of the track you want to portray." Well the above immediately preceded the sentence you disagreed with. I think it covers all types of track.

Any method of increasing reliability is good. Your layout depicts a main line with short trains & steep inclines. This is not to everyone's taste but I do not seen anyone complaining about it (& they shouldn't) so why do you seem to have an issue with others doing things you find unnecessary?

Why would I want that for freshly laid concrete-sleeper track? The 'best method' surely depends on the effect you want to achieve?

The problem is much worse when somebody else "helps".

Absolutely the same cause. DCC usually shuts down as soon as it detects a short. I am surprised it is not cutting power to the whole layout (assuming you are not using power districts or sub-districts). Since you are using Insulfrog, this will power the frog from the point blades. If these are clean then it will not be a problem. You will also have to insulate the other rails at the frog end or else you could feed it from the wrong end & observe the same short when you are running a train around the curved route of the point.

Think about the rail polarity. The voltage is being supplied by the other track & the the wheel is connecting the 2 which causes the short. I suspect this only happens when the tracks are set to run trains in the same direction, therefore making the adjacent rails opposite polarities. Try using insulated rail joiners where the points connect to each other.

Have you looked at the actual formation? According to Wikipedia (which I don't always trust), it consisted of 6 different types of coach & I have been told that none of these are currently available. So Hornby would need to tool up produce 6 different coaches. This is from a company which has been struggling in recent times. It would seem to me to be a very risky decision. I have brass sides & donor coaches for the 2 kitchen cars. I think that completing these & doing similar for the other 7 coaches is the only way I will get a reasonably authentic Scot set.

The most convincing techniques often are quite time consuming. Very rewarding when you nail it though. I also like the weathering you've done on the fence & gate. You've got them spot on.

Scammers (or Phishers) try to trick you into giving your password, bank details etc to them. By telling you your password, this company seems to be proving that you need to be more cautious. I would just change the password they have got hold of (& maybe some others too if you believe that the accounts may be compromised), but the OP says he did this anyway.

That has escaped all the sources I have seen before. That is excellent news from my point of view. I would like to accurately model a de-streamliner in wartime black in late 47 (so I can run it alongside 6256 when it eventually gets released), but the sources I have seen infer that the only 2 to get wartime black as a de-streamliner were re-painted very quickly into 1946 lined black.

By 'proper', do you just mean the 1st 5 un-streamlined ones? 6231 got smoke deflectors after black paint so you could model it with or without these. It got its double chimney before going black. 6233 went from red straight to 1946 lined black. 6230 & 6232 remained in red during LMS ownership, which is where my records stop. 6234 went from red to an experimental blue. 6249-6252 were initially ordered as streamliners but this was changed after the tenders were built. They therefore appeared from new as un-streamlined in plain black with double chimney, curved front running plate, no deflectors & streamlined tenders. My records for these are a bit sketchy but 6249 appeared to get a normal tender before deflectors. 6252 appeared to get deflectors while still with its streamlined tender, both while remaining in plain black. 6253-55 appeared later, carrying 1946 black, deflectors, double chimney, split front running plate & standard tender from new.

That looks ambitious. It would create a lot of interesting train movements but it looks difficult to operate. I have not seen much of Dean Park, but consider the original Everard Junction. There was a lot of good work in this but I appreciate Richard's decision for re-starting it, especially seeing how the successor is progressing. Building a complex layout is an itch which most of just can't resist scratching. I hope you enjoy building it.

Probably existed but likely to be less common than the other way around.

Warm water should soften PVA but you ideally need to soak it, which is not practical because you would soak the ballast too. Can you feel the lumps of remaining PVA when you run your fingers along the rails? If so, then you could try rubbing some plasticard along it like you would a knife. After this, a track rubber as suggested above.

IF my notes are correct: I made them from different sources. 6221 got a double chimney in November 1940 then was painted red in March 1941. It was the only one of the initial batch to carry the red livery. 6224 was the first of these 5 to receive wartime black in Feb '44. 6222 & 6224 were the last of the initial batch to receive wartime black. 6221 had even got it before these 2 even though it had already been painted red in the mean time. 6220 was the only streamliner to be painted wartime black while it still had a single chimney, receiving black in March 44 then getting its double chimney in December that year, the last member of the entire class to be modified. 6220 was also disguised as 6229 Duchess of Hamilton in blue between Feb 1939 & March 1943. 6229 carrying 6220 Coronation in red with single chimney during this time although this was for the tour of the USA. I am not sure if it ever ran in the UK like this. I would not be surprised if it did for a short time. 6240 was the last streamliner to carry red. From Jan 45 until October of that year it was the only one, then it finally received plain black like the rest of the class. 6223 was the first of these to be de-streamlined, in April 1946 along with 6235. These were painted in plain black but only for a short time. All other de-streamliners were painted straight into 1946 black except 6243 which was not de-streamlined until 1949, so it would probably have got a BR livery of some kind.

I've just noticed the new one has a single chimney. According to my notes, 24 was the first of the blue batch to get a double in May 1940. I had assumed that they started to get really filthy once the war started but was this actually the case? Was lack of cleaning a gradual thing?

I wasn't suggesting using bullhead track. FB standard rail with BH points would be more prototypical I have got into the habit of trying anything new on a small test board. I did this with spacing sleepers further apart, adjacent lines closer together & using Copydex to secure both track & ballast before I committed to doing either on a layout. I would certainly recommend this to anyone trying something new. Peco have not announced short radius bullhead pointwork & I do not expect them to. I can understand their logic & agree with it: Most modellers who want more accurate track (ie bullhead) will also want longer pointwork because that looks more accurate too. Most of those wanting shorter radius will also be more willing to compromise on appearance, leaving those who actually want a shorter bullhead point too small a minority to make such a product commercially viable. My words, not Peco's but I am sure this is their logic for producing longer pointwork. I like Ben's modified points though. I have already suggested this to some of my fellow club members because 1 wants to use bullhead rail but I don't think we can justify it.

That's interesting & has transformed the look of the point. There are some jobs which take a lot of effort but seeing a result like that makes it feel worthwhile.

Here goes... I have used a mixture of Peco code 75 flatbottom for fast/slow lines & C&L bullhead for the DC lines on my WCML layout. With the Peco's sleepers spaced out a little, I have to look very closely to see the difference. Peco's bullhead sleepers are spaced at about 9mm centres. Peco's flatbottom is spaced at 7.8mm centres. I have found that 8.5mm for fast lines & 9.5mm for secondary lines improves the appearance noticeably. Bearers on pointwork were always a little closer & as you remarked, these are a lot harder to re-space. It takes me about 30 minutes per m length of track to cut the webbing, space the sleepers out roughly then glue the track down with the sleepers spaced properly. I initially cut myself a tool from plasticard which was ok but a little rough. I then realised I could make a tool much more uniformly (& consistently) with a laser cutter. Then I thought I could share these with others so they have recently become available through the Double O Gauge Association. I have no pointwork on my layout's scenic section so the difference between 9.5mm spacing & pointwork may be a bit unsightly. I have not tried it. If your layout is mainly straight (as mine is) you may also want to consider narrowing the 6' by 5mm to 45.5mm. Some of the spacers also help with this but I also have a separate tool for it. This layout was done with 8.5mm sleeper spacing & narrower 6' way. Pointwork is unmodified. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/56505-a-change-is-as-good-as-a-rest/?view=getlastpost & my own layout, using C&L bullhead for the platform lines & high level line then modified Peco (flatbottom) Streamline for the main lines. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120795-south-hampstead/?view=getlastpost. Rails were laid in 60' lengths on the real railway. I would have done this on my layout if I had thought of it at the time. The new Everard Junction has been done with these lengths & sleepers re-spaced by eye. You can find this on Youtube.

i did wonder if it carried 6229 for a short time as BR loco. Interesting that they did not bother to cover over LMS on the tender when it was renumbered.

Atholl was 31. Montrose was 32.

I usually hear that last bit from people who have never been to MK for anything more than a flying visit. It is a very well designed town. MK has one of the biggest running communities of anywhere & this is not a coincidence. The reason is that most of the paths are kept well away from roads & often cross them by bridges or underpasses, keeping pedestrians well away from traffic. This also allows most of the main network of roads to be national speed limit, so motorists are happier too. If a road becomes blocked due to an accident, the police can simply close the road & this is little more than a minor inconvenience to any drivers because they can just use another road which runs parallel. It has more green land, parks & lakes than any town of similar size...although many of the trees are in unnatural straight lines. It was designed from the outset for road traffic, coping with many times that of smaller towns before becoming congested. When out on foot or the bike (bikes are allowed on the paths (redways)), you don't see many cars because you are separated from them. From my house which is fairly central, I have a choice of 3 Tesco, 2 Sainsbury, 1 Waitrose, 1 Asda, 2 Morrison's 2 Aldis & a Lidl all within 10 minutes drive. This is just the full size stores, not the smaller convenience ones. I can make a 'quick stop' into town on the way out to somewhere. This would take me at least an hour in the town I used to live. I can pop out to a DIY store & back again within 30 minutes quite comfortably. Useful for when you get stuck on a job halfway though the day. Good access to the M1 & WCML. If you need to commute to the city, that is only a 30 minutes journey. It has a ski slope (real snow, not a dry one), sky diving simulator. I believe there are not many of either in the country. Public transport is pretty good. All towns have their nice & not so nice areas. MK is pretty typical in this respect. It was designed to be practical & judged on this, it works very well. As a place to live, it is hard to beat.

I was told that some Inter-City services stopped at Bletchley before Milton Keynes Central station was built. It is hard to think of Bletchley as a major station now, but the removal of the Oxford line would have decreased its importance. It seems just as likely that the line was energised in 1 stage between Rugby & Euston though.

46229? Please wash you mouth out sir! It was de-streamlined in December 1947, so never ran for BR as a streamliner & probably did not re-emerge from Crewe until January 1948 so possibly never ran for LMS as a de-streamliner either