DiveController

Probably neither them or there servants seen it before it were erected, so its not really they're fault

Captain dazzled and unable to tell bow from dock?

Totally, agree, Dave. Super layout!

Ah, Kiernan! That's just salt in the wound for those who can't be there. Looks like it'll be great! Thanks for posting. Keep them coming after the show. Some great shots and video from the Wexford show last week.

Said so before, Eamonn. Third kid... outnumbered, Game over!

Super video, Eoin. Next best thing when I can't get there. THANKS! really enjoyed that:-bd

Great responses, John. I have a much clearer understanding of this. Great information on many things I was not even aware of before!

I think it looks well, Rich. I'd stick an IE plug and socket on it and run it behind 077. It'll do the job and fit in just fine

I did not mean to imply that you had to be on DCC. I guess I misspoke. I was just suggesting some detection system linked to whatever retarder assuming it was electromechanical in some way (electromagnet etc.) and not some hairs on a stick

I think that is exactly the problem. The potential energy from the hump is fixed but the wagon rolling distance and speed is variable based on intrinsic rolling quality and the weight which creates greater momentum. I think that is why the prototypical hump yard uses SEVERAL radar detectors for wagon speed to allow differential slowing at several points. I'm not sure what's available in Dcc detection systems, there is track occupancy but not sure if there us a mini-doppler. Maybe combined with a rheostat to the retarder? Just a thought

John, What is it that makes modern track more rigid? Deeper ballasting? And that would have been done as locos became heavier? Presumably modern locos would be more track friendly if the traction motors were sprung?

Very quiet on the site. I'm thinking everyone is here:trains:

Some chat on here that might be useful http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/71804-coal-staithes/

So modern track is more rigid due to stronger rail and deeper ballasting? And modern locos on bogies are more flexible that coupled driving wheels, I guess. So you're saying that there is a lot of wear on the track or the preserved steam loco with modern running?

Ok, Danny, Looking forward to some photos of the progress as you go. Some good points regarding the scale speeds and retarding systems. Good luck! don't forget to post:tumbsup:

yes….but you can't make cement bubbles from them;)

Very interesting, John. I wonder if the requirement for cleaning has increased or decreased in recent times. Modern locos have obviously become heavier 141-071-201s although I guess the axle loading on the trackbed has probably not changed all that much. With regard to frequency, there are far fewer locomotive powered trains in passenger traffic now almost all being replaced by railcars. I wonder how much freight is traveling by rail now versus 60 or 80 years ago, although loads would have been lighter then, I suspect, although maybe more frequent?

The site is easy to negotiate on a smartphone but sometimes posts are a little tricky due to the screen size, especially if it's more than a couple of lines

Forgot to mention that I'm also willing to swap one of my 171's for it if anyone interested in that - see swapmeet

So is ballast cleaning a modern exercise, insofar as these machines did not exist in the days of steam? I would think there would have been a lot more ash and debris to settle on the track.

Agree with Richie, this has strayed from the topic somewhat. EDIT: ALTHOUGH I have to say that all the posts regarding the discussion of MK2d quality and Murphy models should have been moved here from the Lima Models thread if they are not pertinent to that thread…...

Please be safe if traveling to visit family or friends. Thanks to everyone who contributes to these fora every year, I have learned a lot. Long may it continue. Happy Easter to all! Kevin:bishopbrennan:

One should really be able to express sensible and reasonable opinions on this site without these frenzied retorts, but it seems to happen any time anyone has an opinion regarding a Murphy Models product which is not delivered with genuflection. We all love these products, I have a bunch of them and still collecting. Overall, they are excellent but there is no denying that here are problems with some of the most recent set of 'rtr' coaches as outlined by many on this site and abroad. Sorry, but it is what it is. It is really up to MM to run that business how it sees fit but last time I looked it was not registered as a not for profit. That being the case, the models produced and put on sale by MM have deficiencies and I have to agree with WT that a business decision was made to release the product for sale with knowledge of the shortcomings. Alternatively, if it was not known at release that is a problem in itself for MM. In any case, if MM wished to retain its good and hard earned reputation over the years, other options were available such as a recall of available product, a no hassle refund for unhappy customers to allow deficient units to be returned and acceptable units to remain with modelers. None of these has occurred. No statement has been released by the company to even acknowledge that there is a problem. Failure to address the problem by MM has facilitated this uncertain and emotive discussion regarding the latest product. If MM's reputation suffers as a result that has to be attributed to inaction and its handling of the situation. One can only speculate on the reasons that this has endured without any direct statement from MM. Frequently they reasons are fiscal in nature, designed to protect the company while modelers are expected to purchase poor product to subsidize this. Honestly, I hope that MM does something to address this situation for its own sake. I understand all that has been said regarding dealing with a Chinese producer, again a modern business decision. I have only heard third party opinion regarding the MM's thoughts regarding the situation. It has ample opportunity to express these on its own website, or on here if it prefers. Many other models shops etc. are members on here and have the opportunity to address issues raised by members regarding their business. While anyone on here is entitled to an opinion I believe that MM should speak for itself. I hope that MM will address this soon and hope that it continues to produce good quality products that is synonymous with its name.

Fran, that looks really nice. Is it prototypically correct or any compromises? I need or will need at least a couple of these one in each livery. Could you provide some contact details or PM me? I presume it is an overlay and requires a donor? Thanks, Kevin