Dungrange

I've never used the measuring tool on the NLS website before, but I agree that the platform length seems to scale at somewhere between 100 and 105 feet in length.

You want to have all your feeds at the 'toe' or switch end of the points, so the two feeds on the top half of the layout need to move towards the centre otherwise you'll have no power in the loop when you drive a train in. Apart from that it should be okay.

I suspect that you may just have to try measuring the platform length off an old OS map, such as 25" series for England and Wales, which are available on the National Library of Scotland https://maps.nls.uk/view/114650259 - should be the one you are after. Obviously not particularly accurate, but I suspect as good as you'll get.

Obviously the load that was being conveyed went missing in transit. I guess that's what happens when there is no escort coaches to accompany them. :-) There will now need to be an investigation. Seriously, I'm looking forward to the call to tell me to come and pick mine up from my local retailer.

I'd say the desired length of straight is a function of the length of stock that is being operated. In the case of four wheel wagons, the desired length is the wheelbase of the longest wagon or the distance between the axle on one wagon and the nearest axle on the next. In the case of bogie stock, the desired length is the distance between bogie pivots or the distance between the bogie pivot on one wagon and the nearest bogie pivot on the next. That therefore means if most stock operated on the layout is older four wheel wagons, then three or four inches is probably adequate, but if operating longer bogie wagons, as @jools1959 is proposing, then somewhere in the region of six or seven inches may be more appropriate. In the set-track geometry, that would correspond to a single standard straight. However, if using transition curves, then I'd probably double that length and not bother with the straight - ie as long as there was a minimum circa 12" transition between two opposite curves, it should be okay for most stock.

when I look on E-bay for R094, I mainly get a Pilkington Glass wagon, but also a Thomas set - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114419797301?hash=item1aa3f38d35:g:-9MAAOSw2M9fZ5b7 which is listed at £250. There are a few R091 (and R094) on Worthpoint (https://www.worthpoint.com/inventory/search?categories=&query=R091) but you'd need to sign up for free subscription to see the price details - these are mainly past E-bay sales.

I think the problem is that most of us don't have experience with multiple controllers - I certainly have no experience of either an H&M Walkabout or a Morley Vector Zero Two. That therefore means that I can't comment on whether any particular Gaugemaster model is better than either of these controllers. All I can say is that the club I'm a member of uses Gaugemaster controllers for all our club layouts - generally the Model W (https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/model-railways/gaugemaster-controls-brand5/gaugemaster-gmc-w.html) and these seem to provide perfectly acceptable slow speed control with most locomotives. Where that's not the case, it's as likely to be the motor or gearbox in the locomotive that is the issue, as the controller.

I can sort of see the similarity, but I don't see it as quite the same. The model railway club that I'm the secretary of tends not to build layouts that align with my interests. Our next layout will be 009, a scale / gauge that I don't model in. However, although this is being paid for from club funds, to which I contribute, I still get something out of it insofar as I can still operate the layout both in the clubroom and at exhibitions, even although it's not my stock that is running on it. My birthday and Christmas presents from my family are generally related to my hobby and will one day run on my layout, but trying to elicit contributions from strangers, which is what is being assumed here, isn't something that I'd support. That said, I have nothing against people 'chancing their arm' and seeing whether anyone will give them money. I've also nothing against those who choose to donate to such 'chancers': I just wouldn't do it myself.

It looks like it's a Fleishmann Transformator 6730, based on the photograph in your post on this thread Quite a few 'votes' for Gaugemaster in that thread, although Morley are also mentioned as worth looking at.

Just buy it from somewhere else. For example, my local retailer has them listed on their website. https://www.harburnhobbies.co.uk/acatalog/info-648.html#SID=51

It looks like most places have sold out. However, I note that Monk Bar Model Shop in York appear to still have two listed on their website, if you still want one. http://www.monkbarmodelshop.co.uk/model-railways/oo-gauge-model-railways/Bachmann-oo-locos/Bachmann-diesels/53974-35-127sf-cl-203-drs-sound.html

You might want to have a read of this thread, where there are lots of recommendations for Gaugemaster. I'm not sure why you're switching from DCC to DC if you don't like soldering droppers. The increase in reliability that you get from having a dropper to each track section is as applicable to DC as it is DCC - it's not essential in DCC, just good practise in both and there will be a lot more wiring to convert a DCC layout to DC if you need to create cab sections and isolating sections.

Link was further up the thread.

There was another thread about inlaid track here - If you were into track building, then you could always look at Proto87 - http://www.proto87.com/Paved_industrial_or_dockside_track.html

I don't see why not - you'd be converting a motorised multiple unit into a non-motorised coach. The issue would be whether your remaining unit (the Class 121 in the case) has sufficient traction to pull a rake of non-motorised coaches. It would be worthwhile doing some haulage tests with a few coaches once you get your Class 121 to see what is possible.

Most prototype railway stock can traverse a five chain curve 'dead slow' - ie at a speed of less than 5 mph. A chain is 66ft long, so a five chain curve in 4 mm scale would have a radius of about 52". However, any curve on the prototype with a radius of less than ten chains would usually have a continuous checkrail and a severe speed restriction. That means that in model form, any curves with a radius of less than about 8' 8" should have a continuous checkrail and would be considered a 'tight' radius in terms of the prototype. If you were trying to create a scale model of a small depot, with fairly tight track, you'd probably be looking at a minimum ten foot radius in model form. Of course none of us have the space to build scale curves, so it's down to what looks right in the space you have available. A radius of less than two feet definitely looks like a train set, but once you get up to radii greater than about three foot, you're into the territory of 'looking right', even if the radius is still unrealistically tight. Given how space constrained you are, I think I'd start with a minimum two foot radius curve, but try and increase that where possible. If you can work with three foot radius curves, it would be better.

There will be more CVs that can be adjusted on a sound decoder than a non-sound decoder and apart from the low numbered ones, these will also vary by decoder brand. CVs 2, 5 and 6 or the speed table if you're using one would be the start point to match the speed performance of any two units (sound or non-sound). However, you won't be able to just copy values as the motor, gearing etc will be different between the two units. Matching CVs 3 and 4 would ensure that both units accelerate / decelerate a similar rate, but you'll also need to try and find a CV to replicate the fact that a sound decoder wont move as soon as the throttle is turned up, whereas a non-sound one normally will. How you do that will depend on what decoder is fitted in the Class 108 and whether it has the necessary functionality to simulate a delayed start and try and match that to the performance of the Class 121. I'm sure it will give you endless hours of 'fun'.

Your issue is likely to be that sound and non-sound decoders tend to behave differently. Sound decoders are usually set up with a delay between when you turn up the controller and when the unit starts to move while the engine revs up. The acceleration and deceleration parameters will likely have been optimised to match the sound project. You'll therefore need to play about with various CVs on the Bachmann 108 to try and match the performance of the sound decoder in the Class 121 to achieve a satisfactory consist.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/hjonesengineering The above on E-bay seems to list a back-to-back gauge for SM-45 and track gauges for both SM-32 and SM-45, so I suppose you could contact him and ask if he produces a back-to-back gauge for SM-32. They look as though they are machined in plastic, so I've no idea how good they are. I couldn't see anything else on a quick google.

I suppose the answer depends on what the railway looks like 'off stage'. I'd have envisaged whatever locomotive brought the goods train to your nearby station would then have shunted the wagons to their respective destinations (especially in the context of current railway operations where there are fewer small shunters left). However, if an adjacent goods yard is sufficiently busy to justify a permanent shunter (ie the Class 03) then I suppose you could legitimately say that the movement of fuel from the goods yard to the TMD is a trip working always undertaken by the resident Class 03. I think the only question I'd have would be why the Class 03 trips the fuel to the depot if the train engine was also heading to the depot for servicing? I guess your answer to that could be because the head shunt in too short to allow the placement of the fuel tank to be undertaken by any other locomotive. However, my follow on question would then be why was a brand new facility constructed that way (ie in the 1960s this would have been a brand new diesel depot). Obviously the answer to that lies in the fact that the majority of your infrastructure, including the track, was probably designed for the steam era, but the fuel storage tanks would obviously be new, so why were they placed with such restrictive access? The answer may be that the site is very constrained in real life, just as it is in your model - ie there is a reason why the head shunt is short, which couldn't be changed. As you don't have any run round facilities, the return of the empty fuel tank to the adjacent goods yard would be a propelling movement, which should be okay if the trip back to the yard is short. I'm not sure what the restrictions are with regards to how far a train can be propelled without a brake van.

I wouldn't worry too much about the number of speed steps. The original decoders were all 14 step, which basically means if your prototype has a top speed of 100 mph, then each notch on the controller would equate to about 7 mph. That is, your locomotive would be stationary and then be doing 7 mph and then 14 mph and so on. The number of speed steps was then increased to 28, so effectively each step would equate to about 4 mph. This was then subsequently changed to 128 speeds steps, so each step will equate to a change in speed of less that 1 mph. That therefore means that you can make much smaller changes to the speed. The limiting factor will be that I don't think you can't access all of the sound and lighting functions, which on the 20/3 go as far as F28. I think you can only access F0 to F7 on the E-Z Controller. However, the more frequently used functions tend to be the lower numbered ones. I'm glad you're happy with your purchase.

https://www.theplasticman.co.uk/products/tools-drill-bits-etc.html They are not 1mm increments, but they have a 3mm and 5mm drill bit, which the website says is specially ground for plastics. I've no idea if they are of any use.

According to Wikipedia, Class 121 units were all allocated to the Western Region in 1960 and in 1978 all of the units were still allocated to Western Region depots. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_121 The Network South East livery wasn't introduced until 1986, so I'd suspect the model you're referring to is a late 80s into the advent of privatisation guise and therefore not suitable for a 1960s layout.

My guess would be that the first radius platforms were designed to be situated within first radius curves (ie the radius of the platform edge will be less then first radius) and the second radius platforms were designed to be situated outside of a second radius curve (ie the radius of the platform edge will be greater than second radius). However, that is just my assumption. As you highlight, I don't think the range is in production any longer and what is being sold on places like E-bay seem to just refer to the first and second radius descriptions on the packaging, which don't look to contain any extra information. I suppose you could try e-mailing Hornby customer services, or alternatively ask the seller of wherever you intend to buy from.

I like the flowing track-work, but I'd expect the tracks within the engine shed to be straight - ie it is easier to construct a building with straight walls and right angles for the corners. In the first image you have a siding labelled 'diesel storage'. I'm presuming that the intention is that this is where fuel would be brought into the depot by rail and unloaded. That would therefore imply that you would have a locomotive with a single tank wagon, which would proceed from the fiddle yard to the head-shunt and then propel the tank wagon into this siding. The head-shunt looks a little short, as it looks to be about 12" (0.3 m), which by the time you've fitted a buffer stop leaves maybe 10" (0.25 m) for a locomotive and wagon. That may be enough for the 03 shunter, but may restrict the locomotives that could perform this manoeuvre. It would be much easier to perform the same movement in the second image, as the head-shunt is longer. It may also be possible to use two tank wagons if the siding were longer. I'm not familiar enough with the prototype to comment on what other facilities a TMD of this size may have.