37lover

81F, Sorry I cannot answer the tare vs gross weight but I always thought there were 20 cwt to an imperial ton in which case subtracting 6t 17cwt from 16t would give 9t 3cwt.

Hi Aldebaran, You do really well posting in English but plaies is one of those words that confuses most people : it is spelt plays.

I rarely respond to the Hornby emails but do note that this is promoted as a "Pre Black Friday" so hopefully there will be a wider range of "bargains" on the 24th November.

Could the title please be amended to something a little less generic, maybe include the words level crossing packaging?

SOT, May I suggest changing the thread title to "Rewinding old X series motors"?

Peachy, this will overcome the drag of a 1.8% climb. In my plan I intend the outside loop on both to be the climbing lane, so can you recommend a radius? I can't recommend a radius but can give you the formula for you to calculate. 1.8% is 18mm per 1000mm run. Circumference of a circle is 2 x r x pi. Your helix will need to climb the headroom in each full circle, call this H. Thus in each full circle your helix will climb 2 x r x pi x 18/1000, where r is in millimeters. Pi is roughly 22/7 but the proper calculation will show the climb is r x 0.1131. Therefore H = r x 0.1131. Use this formula with whatever H you choose, for H = 75mm the radius is 663mm, that's your climbing lane.

I am not familiar with problems associated with joining Peco and Hornby track but would strongly advise against using anything other than flex track for a helix. The physical difference in diameters on a helix vs flat circle is very small but I was much happier using flexible track on a helix I built many years ago. If you are constructing the frame/support yourself, and no reason not to, then be careful with the gradient calculations [inner track if more than one] and ensure sufficient headroom under the support of the above track. Helixes need a fair footprint. You might also want to introduce a vertical transition on the entry and exit track(s).

Rob, Fascinating update re Ray's detection system and combined development. I have on occasion, like many others, voiced my frustration [and anger] at Hornby's failure to launch their loco-detection, or at least admit it isn't coming. Financial concerns have meant I have yet again postponed my full retirement and currently I wouldn't have time to do justice to trying Ray's system.

Pirlouit95, Not quite. If you round up to the nearest inch then 14' 7"5/8 becomes 14' 8". I am surprised that it is not rounded down to the nearest inch, which would then be 14' 7" and your example would be correct. 14' 8" minus 3" becomes 14' 5" and rounding to the nearest multiple of 3" results in 14' 6". Way too much thought for a picture/model of a simple bridge.

CORKY, You seem to have some knowledge of these matters but are you sure that 3" is added to the measurement [rounding up!] with another 3" added to give the clearance. My simple brain suggests tolerances would be deducted, otherwise there would be quite a few tall vehicles hitting the bridge!

Injury20, Some sort of Folly, or search Google for Wellington Monument and perhaps a smaller version! I have attached a photo of how I fixed grass matting hanging down along the edge of my township to try and hide the join, the tape measure is only there to show the gap! Perhaps a similar method could hide a horizontal joint.

RP, Can you not share your source, re "I have it on good authority"? Unlike some I certainly would like further development, including local detection (which was my main reason for buying RM many years ago!].

I haven't fitted a smoke generator but have read several posts about them and vaguely recall something about their current demand sometimes can be higher than that provided by the decoder function circuit.

Waste of my time clicking on this thread.

Bulleidboy, Yes, I saw that in the TV episode but didn't see any reason for the wrong wheel spacing; ColinB has suggested the Designer may have wanted to "carry over" the old designed chassis. I'll have to see if I can watch the episode again as I thought the Designer had mentioned a "compromise".

I might have missed the explanation for the original "wrong" 9F wheel spacing but the quick way it was resolved by the design team, at least as presented on the TV, suggests the reason was not important so why do it in the first place. As I say I might have missed the explanation but that has left me, and maybe others who watched the programme, thinking the design team were not doing a very good job!

Given the relatively cheap price to buy these kits I would not think it economically viable to pay, even if someone was willing. Have you thought of buying yourself a magnifying glass/lamp - I use [need!] one for assembling lots of kits.

@ Hobby, Did you just post, and then delete, about pushing down the cab with a link to a picture of a cat in a duvet?

Weymatt, I am relieved to read that you are gong to digest and reconsider your options, a sensible decision. I have followed this thread but have struggled to understand your original very ambitious plans. You have suggested three levels but didn't actually confirm if they were stacked, or side by side. If side by side why have different levels? If stacked then you would need a lot more vertical clearance between each level to reach in! I look forward to seeing further posts from you once you have reviewed your plans.

TT, If you want to overthink it then it depends on the temperature in the room & of the track, etc when you are laying. Cold day vs hot/warm. Personally, as someone with no natural hearing, I would not be too concerned and go with 1mm as you suggest, or I would if I was laying oo scale! Most of my 00 track is flexible anyway.

I am late to this thread. People, myself included, have their preferences and that is quite understandable. I used 12mm mdf on a sturdy frame and then glued a 1/2" thick fibre board [bought from a local builders Merchant] over the top. I sealed the mdf before laying the fibre board and also painted the fibre board before fixing strips of cork underlay and then the track, all ballasted with water/glue mixtures. That was about 10/12 years ago and so far no swelling/blisters. It is located in a purpose built insulated room within my double garage, heating in the cold weather is via a 40 watt tube heater and the temperature has never dropped below 15 degrees Celsius, I do not intend moving the layout! If we ever move house the layout will be listed as a feature, along with the greenhouse and pond! Simply take sensible & appropriate precautions with whatever materials you use, whether that is mdf, a soldering iron, or epoxy glues.

Hi TT, A lot depends on whether you are thinking of a small/short "stand alone" tunnel or something built into a landscape feature. For a small tunnel then simply lift the lot! For a more substantial setting then I would suggest you look at a removable "hatch" or "hatches" above the track. You then have the option of building the main structure in plaster cloth, or any of the other traditional methods, and have the hatch say made from a piece of mdf - with suitable scenery. A few discreet lengths of hedge/bushes will disguise the joints.

WATB, Woah! There was no personal attack, quite the opposite, you have taken my comment completely the wrong way. Sorry for any perceived ambiguity. The "unlike WATB" was referring only to me not understanding Patrica's post. I was complimenting you on being able to understand Patrica's grievance and I couldn't. You will see my comment was based on wrongly assuming we were discussing set R30528.

WATB, I haven't a clue why you have addressed me with the above comment.

GS; thanks for advising it is R3954, situation is clearer although as others have said the description does indeed state only two wagons/coaches/carriages.