DiveController

Thanks for the correction and explanation, David. I suppose IE could strengthen with the Craven in limited circumstances, return to non-gangwayed coaching, in summer during daylight hours, though this must have been an exceptional circumstance.

Leslie, will you have any of the OOworks GNR locos to show off your GNR rolling stock with at Bangor?

Three Dutch vans were rebuilt to run with the ex-BR Mk2A rakes of the early 1990s. The original builds could run with any vacuum braked stock such as the Mk2D Aircon stock

PM sent, Leslie. I would definitely be interested in one. Can't believe I missed it! I suppose my appreciation of the GNR has also grown over the last few years hence the new interest in the UG

Can you clarify what you're referring to? I wasn't aware of Craven/CIE-built GSVs? Thanks in advance

Now hopefully we don't get the usual plethora of unhelpful comments regarding IFM models but I think Wrenns comments are fair and I'm inclined to agree (with you both, I think) that the 6-wheel HLV doesn't capture that distinctive styling of the prototype. This is one of my favorite vans from that period and this model fails to capture my heart. The TPO isn't bad and since there are no rtr alternatives to choose from,... well, enough said. Still happy to see more prototypical builds from the talented scratch builders on here. Put em up, lads

Although they were related chronologically and by design, with my limited knowledge of the GNR I had forgotten that. They outwardly are so dissimilar to the U which lost its tanks, was shortened then lengthened by the addition of a tender. The T1/T2s never received the beautiful sky blue livery of the express passengers locos, being confined to shorter suburban workings for the most part. In terms of era they contemporaries of the U class, whereas the UGs did not appear for 2 decades after the U class. Lovely model, Patrick!

Ok, JB, many thanks. Please post or PM K

Many thanks, Noel and Happy Easter everyone!

That's the Irish way, like IE with 201

Feeders to each length in the middle and to each points. Points may nee insulating joiners on the no-stock rail. Good instructions online of how to wire the points depending if our using switches or by hand

Suggested wire sizes for the main bus(es) under the layout would be 14-16 AWG. For n, droppers(feeders) 22AWG to 24AWG. If the layout is large err on the larger side (less resistance in larger bore wire=less drop in voltage over longer distances). Solid wire recommended especially for feeders avoids electrical problems with stray strands. Voltage drop is proportional to the length of the rail. Most voltage drop occurs across joiners (narrow cross-section) so ideally each track piece should have a feeder. A feeder should be placed near the centre of the rail rather than near the joiner(distance from each dropper to either end is half as long)

I seem to recall some members mentioning that 201s did double head on rare occasions, and certainly a coupling was buckled on one occasion due to the combined tractive effort

PM sent

It's late here, Noel but since no-one has been on as yet, I know that Mayner usually recommends the the etches are fitted to the side of the donor with only the space between the window themselves removed, with the top an bottom left in place to fit to the chassis and roof. He suggests gluing the roof for stability and have the entire thing removable from the chassis. His are designed for a Dapol kit which is a scale 60' which is not the usual 61'6" frame standard on almost all of CIEs 1950s built stock except the very first few composites. Scale 60' coaches required, I think. The tumblehome would be whatever is on the donor coach. NZ will be awake shortly I'm sure

PM Sent

Full power, Tony, balls to the wall!

What could be more entertaining that an exhibition of the quintessential irish railway ... and you don't have to entertain in the Kingdom both days surely?

FCUK'd by another online site. I was wondering where the original BUT car photos had gone to the other night. In discussion before we highlighted the option of "storing a local copy" which you can click on when uploading so it is actually stored on the IRM site servers. Many threads have had their photos disappear when the original folders are rearranged or renamed online even when the host doesn't disappear. I expect the motivation for Dropbox was to get rid of high volume data types to allow it to continue to offer services without having to host huge data volumes associated with photos. A terrible shame but nothing you can do at this point

I know you expressed some reservations about the size when you were planning. I suppose some prefer to run trains and personally I prefer to do that. Obviously you also like to model as evidenced by the high quality of the layout and associated structures so far. If you move to N, you'll certainly fit more in and have room to do more shunting but will you be happy with that another end-end on a smaller scale in the same space? Can the OO gauge layout be extended to create a circuit with helices (maybe impossible in the space still?) or round the room at some arbitrary level that might pass over the furniture allow the room to continue to function? Summer house? Well insulated outside shed, although watch the damp? It a lovely layout and maybe a break from the intense pace will help. I think of mine as a ten year project (more than two years on this site and I have nothing to show for it)!

Jeepers, any photos of these anywhere?

As you know neither really resembles the broad 5'3" gauge since its 16 mm between the rails but the height of the Code 100 rail is oversized. The code 75 appears more to scale and 75/1000" would equate to just over 6" for the prototype (if I've done my maths correctly). Does that sound right for the height of the prototypical rail?

Really like those, Kieran. Superb job!

Double scores, convincing win

I'd take a pair for the GNR, Leslie