Ironroad

For those that say this I would ask, "As compared with what?", besides no diesel has the character of a steam loco.

Never saw that before, very dark. Opening scene is definitely Rathdrum. For a well made piece there is a bit of sloppiness at the end, in that, the train arriving at the station is not the one that departs in the final scene as she walks along the platform.

This is insulting rather than funny. You have been relentless in knocking this model and won't say what you see as wrong with it despite being asked many times to do so.

On no please don't even suggest that, if they are not part of the official production runs they represent theft from those that took the risk of commissioning them.

When I see these, I'm suspicious of their provenance.

Ford was the top selling car maker in Ireland in the '50s. Not sure how many Ford 8s were on the road but the late '40s model Prefect (similar profile) was common as was the newer model of of the Prefect that was introduced about '53 (more boxy) , I have a vivid memory of seeing one in a spin and overturning onto its roof on the bridge over the Tolka in Drumcondra. Have a look at this https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2056353489/road-vehicles-in-ireland-in-1950s#:~:text=Anyway OP%2C the 50's would,popular among the working class. One of the postings states the following;- New Car registrations for January 1959 Total 2,680 Top 10 1. Ford 852 (696 Anglia/Prefects, 132 Consuls, 24 Zodiacs) 2. Morris 458 (395 Minors, 2 Cowleys, 61 Oxfords) 3. Austin 411 (314 A35/A40s 6 A45s, 80 A55s) 4. VW 273 5. Hillman 118 6. Standard/TR 100 7. Renault 98 8. Fiat 94 9. Vauxhall 50 10. Simca 40

Didn't realise there were two other doors that are so close in that landing, but a pocket door might still be possible within 10cm, if that's the depth you have without interfering with the trim around those doors on either side. EG https://www.homedepot.com/p/Masonite-32-in-x-80-in-Unfinished-Pocket-Interior-Door-Frame-59824/202082314?source=shoppingads&locale=en-US&pla&mtc=Shopping-VF-F_D30-G-D30-030_025_INT_DOORS-NA-NA-Feed-PLA_LIA-2144823-WF-AllInteriorDoors+PL3&cm_mmc=Shopping-VF-F_D30-G-D30-030_025_INT_DOORS-NA-NA-Feed-PLA_LIA-2144823-WF-AllInteriorDoors+PL3-71700000033101425-58700003868916472-92700031718764240&gclid=CjwKCAiAxJSPBhAoEiwAeO_fP3q6EJ_QS33u8E-ZI0EQUQPPYj5BYzWH_TEX9wfX2dHXQFZvNf9xdBoC6wwQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds I know this is from a US store but according to the specs the pocket is 3" deep and covering it with 1/2' plasterboard is still just under 10cm total. Might be worth checking locally for what's available. Another solution to consider is a "Barn Door"

Have you considered a "sliding pocket door" The pocket could be placed in the hallway on either side where you have the display cases.

Hi, much had been said on this topic previously on this website but all over the place as part of other topics and this is a topic that finally deserves a thread of its own. Nonetheless you should search this site as there is a mine of information available It is not possible to give a complete answer to your question as there are many variables but for what it is worth I'm pasting a response I provided to a similar question by another member quite recently:- On 4/1/2022 at 2:03 PM, patrick said: What Kadee do you recommend for the brake van John? If I may offer an opinion, this is not a straightforward question to answer. Some trial and error may be needed to achieve the outcome you desire as all circumstances are not the same. A key objective is to achieve the closest possible coupling, and Kadee offer 4 couplers to fit NEM sockets, #s 17, 18, 19, & 20, the shortest being 17 increasing in length up to 20. I have found that #17 is not suitable for use with rolling stock fitted with buffers as the buffer length prevents the couplings from coming together (assuming #17 is used on both items of rolling stock but may work with a 17 on one and an 18 on the other). The minimum radius of the track on your layout needs to be taken into consideration since coupling may be achieved satisfactorily on a straight section between two items of rolling stock fitted with say # 18s but they may not couple on a curve, and if the radius is too extreme they will buffer lock and derail, note buffer length is a factor here and is not standard. Mixing the coupling lengths used on your rolling stock may be an option to achieve a better median distance between wagons or coaches but personally I prefer standardisation particularly for goods stock which is more likely to be shunted than coaches. Hope this helps.

This is very valid. At one point in my career I found I was spending most of the first half of my day answering e-mails to the detriment of getting anything done and this was a vicious circle. It's about time management and I would suggest that some patience is in order. From accounts of those who have interacted one on one with this man, it would seem he is well intentioned.

Wrong line working? If I'm missing something ignore me.

OK I've no problem with this but try convincing the "trouble & strife"

Hi Phil, agree that Keen Systems are cheaper but I think Keen is more suited to bogie stock and refitting the springs the odd time they come loose is a bit of a pain. The Symoba mounting plate is a very neat sealed self contained unit that is wafer thin and only 12.2mm wide x 11.2 mm long and should work with most stock (bogie and rigid),. That said I don't know if it would perform as well as the Keen system on say a Mk 3 coach on a tight radius again Symoba's primary market is HO.

Hi Patrick, we are risking getting off topic here but the problems in the land of Kadees include the fact that they are primarily catering to HO modelers and NEM sockets are a European concept. Some of the issues experienced on tight radius curves can be overcome using their regular range of couplers designed to work in gear boxes that allow the couplers to move laterally. However, there is a German company Symoba http://www.symoba-schniering.de/ (UK distributor DC Supplies) that produces NEM sockets and very small kinematic mounting plates that allow the sockets to move laterally, and allow for easy height adjustment.. These also overcome the problem of drooping NEM sockets. Worth investigating if you are converting all you stock.

If I may offer an opinion, this is not a straightforward question to answer. Some trial and error may be needed to achieve the outcome you desire as all circumstances are not the same. A key objective is to achieve the closest possible coupling, and Kadee offer 4 couplers to fit NEM sockets, #s 17, 18, 19, & 20, the shortest being 17 increasing in length up to 20. I have found that #17 is not suitable for use with rolling stock fitted with buffers as the buffer length prevents the couplings from coming together (assuming #17 is used on both items of rolling stock but may work with a 17 on one and an 18 on the other). The minimum radius of the track on your layout needs to be taken into consideration since coupling may be achieved satisfactorily on a straight section between two items of rolling stock fitted with say # 18s but they may not couple on a curve, and if the radius is too extreme they will buffer lock and derail, note buffer length is a factor here and is not standard. Mixing the coupling lengths used on your rolling stock may be an option to achieve a better median distance between wagons or coaches but personally I prefer standardisation particularly for goods stock which is more likely to be shunted than coaches. Hope this helps.

Thank you John

Does anyone know the Irish running numbers of the Esso UK class A tank wagons? The Heljan model represents them as they were when imported, I recollect seeing a picture elsewhere on the site of one being unloaded I believe at Nth Wall . The picture above indicates the tank supports were modified at some point does anyone know when this occurred?

From the Revenue website , see chapter 49 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2021:385:FULL&from=EN

Sir, you have been asked in numerous responses to your original posting to be specific, please do so. There have been at least two posts that are quite explicit as to relatively minor errors and an improvement that could be made and if PM is reading this thread I'm, sure he'll take these observations on board. But overall these were excellent models that captured the essence of the prototype and were very very good value. for money. Traditionally those that sought absolute precision in every aspect of a model at a specific point in time, have been more that happy to customise as may be perceived as being needed, while the vast majority are happy to abide minor things that are scarcely obvious unless under a microscope and most certainly not obvious when passing us at scale speed on a layout. The acid test is "does it look the part?" and is it "dimensionally correct?" I for one think it meets that criteria and that seems to be the consensus. I like the observation that points to our tolerance of monstrous TLC couplings - I draw the line at that.

Wow, lesson learned I'll say no more other than to point out that, what prevails here is'- “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

Please have the good grace to take constructive comments on board. As I've said twice already the approach you have taken was at least for me a disincentive to buy more that I otherwise might have.

That's missing the point I was making. But YES I would prefer and would accept paying a premium for a pack that contained the specialty items, IE the driving trailer and restaurant car rather than being forced to buy them separately in packs that contain a total four additional coaches. Forcing customers to buy more than they can accommodate on a layout to create a prototypical train is a bit unreasonable. Secondly I didn't actually advocate selling the coaches separately but did suggest that selling in twos and threes would make more sense than simply selling them in lots of three. Were that the case I would have ordered a total of fourteen coaches rather then the nine I have on order.

As I said I understand the business logic of multiple packs. This can also make perfect sense for modellers putting together rakes of wagons. But I'm not so sure about three packs of coaches. With regard to the MK2b coaches it would be a lot more flexible if two and three packs were on offer. This would open up the possibility of purchasing rakes of 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, rather than the current 3, 6, 9, that is being offered. And in fact as packaged all three packs must be purchased to create a prototypical rake, when I believe as few as 7 was prototypical on the Enterprise. Personally I have three packs on order but would have opted to buy more had there been more flexibility, that is I would have ordered both liveries rather than just one.

Inclined to agree with the sentiment that selling in multiple packs can be a turnoff, but understand the the business reasons for it. I'm not too happy with the combinations the MK 2b coaches are being sold.

Agreed, I'm not a rivet counter either and I would also like to understand what the alleged deficiencies are. The original Lima 201 commissioned by Paddy Murphy was a landmark development as it was the very first real RTR model model of an Irish locomotive. It was very acceptable at the time and after stocks at retail stores cleared out it sold for astronomical prices on EBAY until the release of the new version in 2011. However, the decision to produce a revamped model surprised me as the the field was open to Paddy and he might have opted to fill other gaps that existed, EG an A class. We can only guess at his thinking. The attached article published in 2008 may give some insight. http://www.murphymodels.com/files/Murphy_Models_Interview_MR120_052-054.pdf. Note that Hornby had acquired the assets of Lima including their tooling, but did the tooling for the 201 belong to MM and what happened to it. Also note that in 2005 a small number of 201s (in NIR livery) appeared on the market under the brand name AGO, supposedly produced from parts purchased from the liquidators of LIMA. How did that happen if Hornby bought the assets? Was this an infringement of copyright? So perhaps Paddy being true to what he said in 2008 produced a vastly upgraded model in response to a demand that seemed very obvious and he was probably able to rely to some extent on work and research already done for the first model but he may also have wanted to to circumvent or snooker any further use of the original tooling or parts. This was a quality model and is worthy of a rerun.