Ironroad

That sheds a more positive light on matters and is encouraging. Yes a C class is an obvious choice and they together with the AEC railcars that would open up lots of possibilities.

I see it as lobbying and I don't see any harm in keeping hopes alive. Most certainly some of our wishes are probably unrealistic commercially but we have not seen outright dismissal of the suggestions being made and it would be a shame if the goose that laid the golden egg was forgotten entirely as I sometimes fear is the way things are going. I think these are the figures posted by Stephen on RM Web quote; "Generally if we can make 20-30k of it, if its a wagon, 15-20k of it if its a coach and at least 5-8k of it if its a loco, it's 'viable' in our eyes. " The problem is that if John is right in his assessment above that the market is as small as 1,000 active modellers/collectors, that number is not necessarily representative of the interest that may exist for particular offerings because it is diluted by bias for particular periods. So I think the best we can hope for is items that spanned long periods of time that will sell in multiples. A possibility here is the AEC DMUs that ran in various liveries from 1951 to the early '80's. Running contrary to all of this was the production of the ballast plough. The probability is that few of us purchased more than a pair and they did take a while to sell out and that maybe a reason for hesitancy to go with such a unique item again. But given the fact that they are essential to completing a ballast train, did they contribute to sales of the ballast wagon? So I don't think items that may have low volume demand can be entirely ruled out. It is noteworthy that Paddy Murphy seems to have had success in selling purely complementary items such as EGVs and Restaurant cars. So is the glass half full or half empty???

They are much simpler or perhaps should I say more sophisticated than that. They uncouple magnetically, via a magnet under the track bed. Reversing the stock over this magnet opens the couplings, you can then change the direction of the loco and leave the stock behind. I think Noel has posted extensively on this subject and has included a video.

Even a kid knows what a CHU CHU is

Yes, nostalgia is probably a big part of this, but steam made the railways possible and steam engines are the epitome of them. Diesels for all their practicality are pretenders.

That about sums it up. The GMs except for the 201 have more interesting profiles than probably any other diesel prototype in Ireland or the UK. but that doesn't justify describing those less interesting profiles (long or short) as bricks or briquettes. They are what ran or still run on the railways we aspire to model and so we need to accept them otherwise what's the point. They are what they are.

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