DiveController

Merry Christmas, John! I guess in NZ you're already on Christmas Day so You get to open your prezzies first. A little ways still to go over here in US. However,…. NZPS & USPS have done well this time, kits arrived unexpectedly early and in time for Christmas! Depends on whether your nearer to Mayner or more in west Kerry nearer me:D As soon as you can get away with it would be my opinion! Merry Christmas everyone!!

Thanks, David & Maitland. I remember Grayrigg now that you mentioned it. Completely preventable, 5 years for the furore to die down, a paltry slap on the wrist (no, £4m isn't really that much (and better spent on track maintenance, I know)), and a knighthood to boot. Spectacular!

Some of the measurements seems critical to success and maybe easier to do in O gauge than OO?

I'm not reading anything above. Spoiler alert!

How does that run, Noel? I think the SW1500 is a recommended donor chassis for the MIR 121 kit, iirc. As a connoisseur of centre drive double flywheel motors, would value your opinion on that or a video if possible? K

Eh,… same question, Des, what chassis and how does it run?

Great little thread, I considered trying to buy a Dublo crane on eBay after this but it went for too much so I opted out of the bidding. Are these superior in any way to the more modern plastic version? they're not prototypically correct if I recall and Eoin seems to think they need a little refining. Nice little thing though, IMHO

So I wonder why they needed interlaced track then but in this age of health and safety and high viz vests and …. Well, why go with to a facing "Y" point now? Are modern points more reliable with regard to absence of potential derailing, someone decided it had been unnecessary in the first place on safety grounds, or what? The bridge is no lower now and I presume if the bridge itself was not going to 'hold' a derailing loco then it would not do any better job now. We did have a discussion about facing points and modern stiffer track on another thread here in the last year or so but I'm not sure if any of that factors into this? Was the interlaced track controlled by a token/key as there were separate up down lines but these would normally overlap/interlace as here? Were the tracks interlaced because bridge was too narrow or could not support the weight of two trains on the bridge simultaneously?

Not exactly, the first wagon is actually green with a heavy coat of rust. The browns probably outnumber them 3:1 now

Hehehe I'd never have believed it! It's not your usual flavor of Black'n'Tan for sure I think this B-B switcher (SW1500) is still current, photos of her up to two years ago but mainly in the US Midwest http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locopicture.aspx?id=15663

So was I Think you've used that one before, JB but I like it:D Agreed. My personal MacBook Pro has been very trusty indeed until this week when augmented multi-mode authentication plus a software upgrade at work left my OSX 10.7 no longer supported for remote access. Time for a long overdue replacement for the iMac that is still in perfect order behind me, also no longer 'supported' due to it G5. So a new iMac will be purchased no doubt in the New Year which may finally spur me to contemplate what to design for the newly negotiated real estate

Old Hornby Dublo. Are these metal or plastic?

I think he's wondering if there's an app for that?

I don't have much interest (yet) in US outline but I know many on the site do, so I took 5 minutes to stop off on the commute today to shoot some ad hoc video of BNSF locos that occasionally make me 15 minutes late for work if I hit the wrong R/R crossing! Shot on the spur of the moment in adverse lighting (into bright sunlight) with an iPhone so sorry about the video quality Blooper, so look like I can't upload the video from the Mac directly, so all I can give you is this

Billyboy, I think your loco may be preserved (or, at least has not been scrapped) as one of the few survivors of the S-2 class switcher http://www.trha.ca/locomotives.html#cp7020 My only Canadian National one of the successors an Alco (MLW) C424 by Atlas

Paul, given the opinion of several members offered on the thread, it seems more likely than not that you may be mistaken on this point. I was never there so cannot comment one way or the other. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Dave on this point that, having read the thread, the decision to hand out a temporary ban without warning on this difference of opinion seems unnecessarily harsh and to my mind of limited value. I do not think it impartial for a moderator as a protagonist in the disputed opinion to hand out a ban when the moderator on this forum appears to be garfieldsghost. The site a a source of information, support, and enjoyment for all the members, punctuated by occasional hiccoughs. Frequent bans and thread locking are detrimental to to the site and potential membership as we are in general terms a small community. I hope that everyone will have had an opportunity to reflect overnight and that we can all resume tomorrow. Regards to all

Looks like ergonomics was not a priority for driver or passengers

Sorry to be coming in on this thread so late. This design looks great. If you're worried about access to set up stock or deal with any potential derailment at the back, you could consider moving the back scene divider forward about 8" and making approximately the last 2' of the scene divider oblique on each end, maybe backward on the right and forward on the left. This would leave room for a modest sized access well maybe 18"x2' behind the divider approximately in squares 2,3,8,9 of the middle row and some of the squares behind. You could consider raising the level of the baseboard to provide easier access to the wells and potentially you would be looking "at the trains" rather than down upon them. You could set up stock or deal with issues from the wells. I'm assuming the the back of the layout would be against the wall hence concerns over access. With this arrangement, I think this would appeal visually if you entered the room or whatever from the right, mirror image the suggested design if there is a door on the left. The back scene divider would now be almost 12 feet long. There is quite a lot of spare room on the left side if the divider is brought 'forward' in this way. Trains enter/leave via a tunnel. The storage sidings on the inside become progressively shorter but could be extended into this area on the left to accommodate longer trains by replacing maybe two of the left-hand turnouts with single-slips. The last couple of coaches would need to be reversed into the additional area for running in a clockwise direction. This could all occur behind the back scene. If you can squeeze another 4-6" in depth there is an option to have two running loops of the same radius as this as you have just sufficient length for an elevated track with no more than a 3% gradient. The tracks partially overlap (one elevated) behind the back scene. I don't have a planner like Glenderg or Dave but I can PM you a sketch if/when you're interesting in moving ahead.

There is one preserved at at the Texas State Railroad. I was there last week for a Polar Express special but did not get a photo of the Alco (maybe next year). I believe that the Canadian ones were made at Montreal Locomotive Works but some made by the American Locomotive company were exported north of the border. However, there is a video of her on YouTube Incidentally, that may be an S-2, although I'm open to correction as I don't model US outline. Nice model though

Nice shot, Richie!! It looks like this has an interlaced up and down line with check rails on the inside also. What would the advantage of an interlaced track (versus merging into a single road) have been? Absence of a facing point at the exit to the bridge in each direction?

If it's bothering you that much I would be happy to take it off your hands:D PM me

Ok, difference of opinion, folks….. Something constructive to do with Sulzers?

Now, that's what I'm talking about! Beautiful detail, Richie! Is this Weshty's? with detail added? What chassis is she on? Thanks

Iarnrod's pics show 079 in her original livery and latterly in her super train livery as 079S, but in the last picture Original livery as delivered to CIE prior to being repaint into ST proper but with with 079S on the front (CAWS fitted) and then 079SA on the side with SA in somewhat smaller lettering indicating some sort of ad hoc remembering as the air brakes were commissioned, (one presumes). Anyway no question that she was not 079SA by the time she was repainted into ST livery