Bugs in Open Rails

35005CP Mon 19 May 2014, 6:23 pm

Hi Everyone,
Have just checked the Merchant Navy's I have done in OR, I have noticed that there is a happy little crew member standing on the running plate as in this shot;

Anyone else finding this? They do disappear if you view around the loco, but then re-appear again at this angle.....
Cheers
Andy

**slipperman12** Mon 19 May 2014, 6:41 pm

Hi Andy,
I have seen reports of this on the Open Rails Forums, but don't know if a solution has been found.

You seem to be using X2194; have you tried the latest - X2237?

Cheers,
Ged

35005CP Mon 19 May 2014, 6:51 pm

Hi Ged,
I have just done a search on you're recommendation and it appears there is a later one? It's version X2245. Here is the download link; http://james-ross.co.uk/projects/or

I have checked the download and it appears to be a legitimate copy. Although still the same thing is occurring with the crew on the running plate! Well it should be a trip and a half for them!! Should blow some cob-webs away!! Shocked

Cheers

Andy

**slipperman12** Mon 19 May 2014, 7:03 pm

Hi Andy,
Yes, it'll be a legitimate copy as James is one of the team!
A new version is issued almost every day, but I prefer to wait for the Friday issues. I feel that the daily issues may contain transient items which don't make it to the weekly one Smile

Cheers,
Ged

EDIT : Just found out that this bug was reported in March (this year!).

35005CP Mon 19 May 2014, 7:53 pm

Hi Ged and anyone else whom may know?
Is there any reason that the OR team don't wait until major fixes have been sorted before that upload their newer versions? Also is there a breakdown of the fixes for each release?
Thanks
Andy

dforrest Mon 19 May 2014, 8:11 pm

35005CP wrote:Hi Ged and anyone else whom may know?
Is there any reason that the OR team don't wait until major fixes have been sorted before that upload their newer versions? Also is there a breakdown of the fixes for each release?
Thanks
Andy

OR is still in Beta and I assume the daily version are mainly for for development purposes. The content of each release is shown here:

http://openrails.azurewebsites.net/code/revisions

35005CP Mon 19 May 2014, 9:46 pm

Hi David,
Thanks for the link. I will drop that into my Favourites to check on future releases and fixes to check on each release. Very Happy

Cheers
Andy

**slipperman12** Wed 21 May 2014, 8:14 pm

Hi Andy,
I have discovered that the problem with the footplate crew is NOT a bug in Open Rails, but could be the result of a bug in MSTS (but how can that be??!! Shocked

)

Using the tender of 35012 as a test, I looked at it in Shape viewer then added the crew as a second shape. They appeared a long way ahead of where they should be. I moved them back to the tender footplate (temporarily!) then used Shape File Manager to fix them in their new position. Testing with OR showed them correctly,standing on the tender footplate. Reverting to MSTS, they appeared floating in mid-air some way behind the tender!
If someone with more knowledge than I have can explain that, or even offer a fix for MSTS, I'm sure we'd all be very appreciative Smile

One other problem with the Merchant Navies in Open Rails is that when the inside of the cab sides is viewed from outside the loco (views 2 or 3), they appear transparent. This also applies to the original loco on which yours is based - as would be expected Smile

Cheers,
Ged

EDIT : one, rather important, point which I omitted is that this problem only affects crew Freight Animations which are applied to the tender shape and shifted to appear on the loco footplate. There is no problem when the crew FA is based on the loco shape itself - could this be the source of the trouble?

35005CP Wed 21 May 2014, 9:36 pm

Hi Ged,
Thanks for the findings. Is it worth posting this on the OR Forum and over on UKTS?
Maybe we can get some of the OR guys over onto this forum? Cool

Cheers
Andy

**slipperman12** Wed 21 May 2014, 10:32 pm

Hi Andy,
I've been trawling the trainsim.com MSTS and OR Forums and have found that this problem was raised in 2011.
The best I can do is post the link : http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?299175-Jon-Davis-Oldtime-Tender-load-problem-in-Open-Rails
I think it explains all we need - I know it refers to a tender load (the original purpose of a Freight Animation) but the effect is the same! It turns out to be a "fault", if it can be called that, in MSTS, but I doubt there's any way to change it now!
However, that points to the answer! If the Type in the tender file is changed from Tender to Freight, the crew appears correctly in OR and MSTS! - but that will present other problems, I think, like not being able to add water and coal. It looks like a case of one step forwards, ten steps back Sad

Cheers,
Ged

ianmacmillan Wed 21 May 2014, 11:24 pm

The problem is with the position in the shape file.

There are two places in the shape file giving the position.
Moving the shape file in SFM only changes one of them.
If the shape has already been moved once to suit the tender, moving it again will cause the problem you are experiencing.

The solution is the find a version in the position it was placed in the modelling program - probably the initial download.
You then move it to the new position in SFM.

I found this out the hard way with my common.loads.

dforrest Thu 22 May 2014, 12:56 am

The original 8F.s shape file was my upload and should have been installed in the folder "\TRAINS\TRAINSET\common.crew\BA_1"

**slipperman12** Thu 22 May 2014, 9:14 am

Hi,
I have the utmost respect for Ian in all that he has done, and is doing, for us in MSTS, and the following in no way diminishes that.

Thinking about the crew FA in the tender overnight, I wondered if Open Rails has used the coding from Shape Viewer to position the FA in a tender. Changing the type from Tender to Freight solved the problem in OR and also DIDN'T introduce any into MSTS (other than possibly regarding refueling). So, putting it rather simplistically, wouldn't removal of the special coding for dealing with tender Freight Animations and replacing it with that for 'normal' freight vehicles in Open Rails be the answer? There is also a report on trainsim.com regarding a fuel load (wood) in the tender of a loco being wrongly placed in Open Rails; wouldn't this support my idea?
I'd be pleased to hear of any observations.

David : It doesn't seem to matter whether the FA shape file is in the same folder as the loco/tender or in common.crew, the effect being the same!

Cheers,
Ged

dforrest Thu 22 May 2014, 12:29 pm

slipperman12 wrote:David : It doesn't seem to matter whether the FA shape file is in the same folder as the loco/tender or in common.crew, the effect being the same!

That was not my purpose in providing this information.

I was answering:

ianmacmillan wrote:The solution is the find a version in the position it was placed in the modelling program - probably the initial download.
You then move it to the new position in SFM.

**slipperman12** Thu 22 May 2014, 4:01 pm

Hi,
Further to my post earlier today.
The original problem with a Freight Animation being used to show the fuel load in a tender resulted in the image of the fuel being displayed on the track under the tender - OR v0.9 shows this. This has since been corrected and the fuel is now displayed correctly. Conversely, in v0.9, the crew FA is shown correctly in the loco cab - I haven't checked in detail whether they are at the correct height, but look OK. So, it looks as if the fuel load correction has upset the crew location!

Cheers,
Ged

EDIT : X1955 was the version of Open Rails in which the fuel load FA is first correctly shown; this coincides with the first version in which the crew FA is incorrectly displayed.

35005CP Sat 21 Jun 2014, 12:15 am

Whilst having a play with 35018 in Open Rails and noticing a lot of differences with the Regulator and braking and on doing a run on Dorset Coast! I came across a tree on the line!; (Literally) - It can't be an Oak as they take decades to grow! Shocked

I only tried this as trying to work out why 20189 is below the track..... I have a feeling it has something to do with TSM and positioning.... Also the wheels rotate above the loco...

Andy

neanderthal Sat 21 Jun 2014, 7:43 am

Hello Andy,I've only tried OR on the Dorset Coast Route,and believe me I've found loads of trees on the track.! Sad

**slipperman12** Sat 21 Jun 2014, 6:03 pm

Hi Chaps,
Trees in the permanent way has been a problem with Open Rails since the beginning!! It's caused when using forest items which are close to the track. However, I thought it had been corrected (but we all know what thought did, don't we? Shocked

). Are you using the latest Experimental release?

On the subject of Open Rails bugs - regarding the footplate crew being positioned at the smokebox. I have had an update from the team that that particular problem is now being dealt with (my words!!); as soon as I hear anything definite, I'll update this thread.

Cheers,
Ged

35005CP Sat 21 Jun 2014, 8:09 pm

Hi Ged and all,
IMHO, OR is great for the Graphics side of things, but a lot of work it my be seem such as getting those trees on the line and footplate-men and standing starts where they should be... Can they not look into these problems first and release as and when the problems have been fixed?
Cheers
Andy

**slipperman12** Sat 21 Jun 2014, 8:33 pm

Hi Andy,
Sorry to repeat the question, but are you using the latest Experimental release of OR?

Regarding correcting bugs - As they are reported, they are prioritised before being allocated to a team member for resolution. If a bug isn't reported, they don't know about it! The footplate crew problem hadn't been reported before I did, not so long ago! I believe the trees in the PW problem is, in fact, a bug in MSTS, or, maybe, an undocumented feature (!), which makes them NOT appear in the track.

Cheers,
Ged

35005CP Sat 21 Jun 2014, 9:04 pm

slipperman12 wrote:Hi Andy,
Sorry to repeat the question, but are you using the latest Experimental release of OR?

Regarding correcting bugs - As they are reported, they are prioritised before being allocated to a team member for resolution. If a bug isn't reported, they don't know about it! The footplate crew problem hadn't been reported before I did, not so long ago! I believe the trees in the PW problem is, in fact, a bug in MSTS, or, maybe, an undocumented feature (!), which makes them NOT appear in the track.

Cheers,
Ged

Hi Ged,
Yes I am using the latest release (X2319) - Checked as shown in this screenshot with the trees still on the line and also both footplate crew towards the front of the loco on the running plate....

I haven't checked MSTS for the trees showing on the line as I don't remember seeing them..... I'm not saying that they weren't showing on the track.... I am testing as an example between Aldershot P1 and Waterloo P17 as an example on DC v6.

Hope this helps?

Cheers

Andy

**slipperman12** Sat 21 Jun 2014, 9:36 pm

Hi Andy,
I'm pretty certain that you won't find trees in the track in MSTS!!

I haven't checked OR recently regarding the solution to the trees problem. but have a feeling it's being treated as minor!

Cheers,
Ged

neanderthal Sun 22 Jun 2014, 7:24 am

Hello Ged/Andy,as an avid Dorset Coast man I can say that the trees do NOT appear on the track when running on MSTS.To check this out I have run in O.R. and followed through straight after in M.S.T.S. on the same Act. Regards Sad

35005CP Mon 29 Sep 2014, 3:42 pm

Hi everyone,
Whilst doing some testing for Ged, I have come across a real funny! For some reason one of my Class 20's is beneath the tracks in OR, but in MSTS is showing fine and on the tracks...... Does anybody have any idea why this might be?
Is it something I should put to the OR team?
Cheers
Andy

**slipperman12** Mon 29 Sep 2014, 7:05 pm

Hi Andy,
Knowing how MSTS accepts and/or corrects many anomalies within files, does your loco display OK in Shape Viewer? If not, it and Shape File Manager can be used to re-position the loco.

Cheers,
Ged

35005CP Mon 29 Sep 2014, 7:26 pm

Hi Ged,
It is normally OR that accepts any issues that MSTS doesn't!! Wink

The loco displays fine in shape Viewer. Very confused as it was working fine! I have done updates of OR as I do every day.... I haven't changed anything (That I know off)..... Does this as leading and trailing loco...
I have another issue with the Cabviews as well in OR and MSTS, but I am not going to blame that on OR.....
Very odd!
Cheers
Andy

dee4141 Wed 22 Oct 2014, 11:48 am

Just read this thread as it seems to be discussing one of my models. Normally I would alias the crew to the loco, but if a freight anim has already been applied to the loco, then it would be aliased to the tender. Not sure what applies here as I have no access to my models. However earlier this year I made my own crew set which I think have been included in the new H, E1 and D1 classes, so it might eventually be possible to include the crew as part of the loco model if these problems can't be resolved.

GSX1400 Fri 24 Oct 2014, 1:55 pm

Hello everyone,
I tried OR the other day with my favourite engine, a GWR Manor Class.
In MSTS you have to open the small injector to cause the brakes to go off just using ' and ; isn't enough you need J

In OR there doesn't seem to be a way to switch the small inject on/off so this train won't move. . . very far.

**slipperman12** Fri 24 Oct 2014, 2:39 pm

Hi GSX1400,
Could we have a more friendly name, please Smile

You're right in that there is no Small Injector, J, key. However, after you have released the brakes, if you wait long enough (too long, really!), the loco will move.

If you look at the top left of the screen for the entry : Train brake Running 0% Vnn inHg (where nn is a number); when nn gets over 19 inHg the loco will start moving.

I think this should be reported as a bug, if it hasn't already Smile

Cheers,
Ged

EDIT : It's great being able to add to earlier posts!!
Testing various GWR locos, including some Manors, shows them to work OK under OpenRails. Only the Manor from the West Somerset Railway route CD took a long time to start. If yours is not from that CD, can you tell me with which one/s you're having problems and I'll check them out. The reason is that I need to find a good example because, if it is to be reported, evidence has to be supplied so that the OR team can determine the solution.

**slipperman12** Tue 11 Nov 2014, 7:05 pm

Hi All,
Up to now, there is no Small Injector/Ejector/Compressor key (J) provided in Open Rails.
This makes it impossible to release the brakes of a loco of GWR origin in a reasonable time. My tests show that the brakes do eventually release, after about 2 minutes - this compares poorly with MSTS where the time is less that 1.5 seconds!

Although there has been mention of this problem in various Forums, it doesn't seem to have been reported! I have, today, corrected that omission and will keep this thread updated Smile

Cheers,
Ged

35005CP Tue 11 Nov 2014, 7:09 pm

Hi Ged,
Not sure if what you have posted is related or not? But in testing Danny's Merchants in OR when you open the Regulator and then once you are going at speed. For whatever reason they de-accelerate very quickly once you shut off....
Apologies if this is a separate issue.
Cheers
Andy

**slipperman12** Tue 11 Nov 2014, 7:44 pm

Hi Andy,
I don't think it's related - you don't have to open the small injector to release the brakes, do you?

I'm not happy with the way steam locos (at least UK models!) run under Open Rails. I was doing some final tests on the FA problem (as was!!) yesterday with the default Flying Scotsman, but couldn't get her above 50mph. It might be how I've configured (or not configured) OR, but I'll have a run with one of the MNs to see if I have the same problem.

Cheers,
Ged

35005CP Tue 11 Nov 2014, 7:51 pm

Hi Ged,
No I don't have to release the Ejector to release the brakes.... But they are very sluggish off the starting block and once you de-accelerate - Rather than coasting as normal it's as if the brakes are on immediately.
Please can you let me know your finding on the Merchant Navies?
Cheers mate
Andy

**slipperman12** Tue 11 Nov 2014, 8:21 pm

Hi Andy,
I've just done a very unscientific test with 35008 on the S&C - got her to 50mph then shut the regulator. It took quite a time to come to a stand.

If you could let me know which loco, which part of what route (preferably what station to start at, and in which direction), I'll give it a comparative test.

By the way, another bug in OR which needs fixing is to stop the "chuffs" when the regulator is closed!!

Cheers,
Ged

35005CP Tue 11 Nov 2014, 8:54 pm

Hi Ged,
I have done this with 35018 of which I renamed and re-badged as is the same with 35008. I have tried it at a slow speed on the flat both at Bournemouth on the watersnake route (Light Loco) and with another Bulleid from the pack. Also tried it on LSE Route. But if you think it is all okay, then must be an issue with mine. I have noticed that the Bulleid sound and whistle have gone as well in OR. Will check on MSTS though to see if the Bulleid sounds have gone.
Cheers
Andy

**slipperman12** Wed 12 Nov 2014, 11:33 am

Hi Andy,
I have done some comparative tests with MSTS and ORTS. The consist used was 35027 + 12 Bulleid coaches on the Bournemouth to Southampton path.

MSTS : Time to reach 50mph : 2mins 33secs Time to come to a stand after reaching 50mph with regulator off : 6mins 53secs
ORTS : Time to reach 50mph : 3mins 33secs Time to come to a stand after reaching 50mph with regulator off : 6mins 14secs

The time difference to reach 50mph may be due to the fact that I'm more experienced driving with MSTS (I think!). The run-down time difference is negligible.
The above figures give a lie to my assertion that steam locos don't run as well under OR, so I must change it to "some steam locos don't run as well under Open Rails".

I carried out a test with just the light engine, but the MSTS time to reach 50mph was less than a third of the OR time with the result that the time to a standstill was distorted by the very favourable gradients encountered by MSTS when not under power. I'll repeat this test using the same section of track.

One thing I did notice was that the Bulleid sounds were a bit "lumpy" - sometimes missing for a second or so.

Cheers,
Ged

EDIT : I have, at last, been able to complete the light engine testing!
MSTS : Time to reach 50mph : 0mins 35secs Time to come to a stand after reaching 50mph with regulator off : 2mins 43secs
ORTS : Time to reach 50mph : 1min 43secs Time to come to a stand after reaching 50mph with regulator off : 1min 39secs
The starting point for the second timings was Christchurch.

35005CP Wed 12 Nov 2014, 8:28 pm

Hi Ged,
Well more of a day of testing today it seems with those really great guys at OR! They are a brilliant bunch and have even offered my services as and when....
Looks like I have resolved an issue with the ttype.dat file. (Well not me, but the Open Rail boys!)
Looks as though the code will be going out in the next issue to sort out any problems in the Watersnake Route as far as running any Consists goes. I will let Ged explain more to all of you...
Going back to your tests mate - I guess (thinking about it) is how a loco would slow in real life when the Regulator is shut..... I guess I've been so use to MSTS looking as though it takes too long for a loco to stop, that I have forgotten about the real thing!
Going back toy your comment about the Bulleid sound, Internally the sound is ALOT different to externally..... Any ideas?
Cheers
Andy

**slipperman12** Mon 02 Feb 2015, 4:10 pm

Hi All,
It looks as if the crew of some locos are riding by the smokebox again - probably to keep warm!!

It doesn't seem to apply to all, but will investigate and, if necessary, resurrect my original bug report!

Cheers,
Ged

EDIT : I've found that, although all locos I've checked use the same common.crew entry in the tender wag file, the parameters vary, which is the source of the problem. The locos checked are file IDs 23425 (Bristol Jubilees), 25760 (Derby Black 5s), 22655 (CCW_BR_8P_46202. The only one where the crew are in the cab is the Derby Black 5s - the FA line is "..\\common.crew\\BA_1\\ccw_8F.s" 0 3.0 0.0 the others have 0.25 3.0 0.0 as the last three parameters. Amending them to match the Derby Black 5 entry results in the crew returning to their cabs.
The effect on MSTS is that when the 0.25 is replaced by 0, the crew's feet are buried in the cab floor.
EDIT 2 : As I felt that users shouldn't be required to edit eng files, a bug report has been submitted.

**slipperman12** Tue 26 May 2015, 3:43 pm

Hi,
I've now received notification from the Open Rails team that the crew Freight Animation problem has been solved!

I haven't done any tests yet as I don't know to which version of Open Rails it has been applied. As the commit is dated 25 May, then it's unlikely to be in v1.0 which was released on 22 May.

Cheers,
Ged

**slipperman12** Sat 30 May 2015, 10:08 pm

Hi,
Well, I'm pleased to report that the locos I tested before, in Clive's Bristol to Birmingham route, all now have their crews on the footplate Smile

I'm running the Stable V1.0, without any updates.

Maybe you, Andy, would like to check the Bulleids ?

Cheers,
Ged

35005CP Sat 30 May 2015, 10:50 pm

Hi Ged,

Yes, all the crews are now in their rightful places (On the footplate) now; rather than riding "Top Gun" Very Happy

Cheers

Andy

**slipperman12** Mon 31 Aug 2015, 6:53 pm

Hi All,
I don't know how long it's been going on, but the crew are, yet again, keeping warm by the boiler!!

Another user has reported what seems to be a different problem with a tender-based FA for a loco (but it might be linked to our problem).

I haven't (yet) raised a further bug report, but have started a new thread on Elvastower in the hope of getting something done permanently. I have quoted my original report, as published here : https://tsforum.forumotion.net/t655-freight-animation#7863

Before anybody comes back and says it's easy to change - yes, it is for those who are able to use Shape File Manager, but it would also require separate shapes for placing at differing heights. For example, many locos use the ccw_8F.s file, but with different parameters - eg : FreightAnim ( "..\\common.crew\\BA_1\\ccw_8F.s" 0.25 3.0 0.0 ) and FreightAnim ( "..\\common.crew\\BA_1\\ccw_8F.s" 0.0 3.0 0.0 ). If the shape was positioned in OR for those locos using the first example, they would be too high in those using the second.

Cheers,
Ged

dforrest Mon 31 Aug 2015, 7:39 pm

slipperman12 wrote:Hi All,
I don't know how long it's been going on, but the crew are, yet again, keeping warm by the boiler!!

Another user has reported what seems to be a different problem with a tender-based FA for a loco (but it might be linked to our problem).

I haven't (yet) raised a further bug report, but have started a new thread on Elvastower in the hope of getting something done permanently. I have quoted my original report, as published here : https://tsforum.forumotion.net/t655-freight-animation#7863

Before anybody comes back and says it's easy to change - yes, it is for those who are able to use Shape File Manager, but it would also require separate shapes for placing at differing heights. For example, many locos use the ccw_8F.s file, but with different parameters - eg : FreightAnim ( "..\\common.crew\\BA_1\\ccw_8F.s" 0.25 3.0 0.0 ) and FreightAnim ( "..\\common.crew\\BA_1\\ccw_8F.s" 0.0 3.0 0.0 ). If the shape was positioned in OR for those locos using the first example, they would be too high in those using the second.

Cheers,
Ged

Ged, you may not be aware, but I, together with Bob Latimer, was the originator of the whole "global shapes" concept.

The concept was to produce shape files which could use the global .ace files to add crew to locomotives. If you look back at the UKTS file library you will see that I uploaded many such shape files each of which was specific for a particular locomotive or, if necessary, a locomotive of a particular class, produced by a particular modeller.

What has now been done with the 8F tender shape file, is to expect it to be able to be used with any locomotive tender. This is not reasonably to expect and the shape file must be adjusted in Shape File Manager to be compatible with the particular tender in question.

**slipperman12** Mon 31 Aug 2015, 7:59 pm

Hi David,
Thanks for your reply, but it still doesn't alter the fact that in MSTS everything is displayed correctly, but not in Open Rails!! Also, setting the first parameter to 0.25 instead of zero shouldn't make such a big difference to the shape's position.

The first parameter can be adjusted to vertically position the crew correctly in any loco. I don't know whether this was your originally intended use for the parameters, but it works fine in MSTS!

You can probably answer this - the second parameter usually seems to be set to 3.0; was this in your specification, or has it just become "common custom"? If so, I can understand why - see my report.

Cheers,
Ged

dforrest Mon 31 Aug 2015, 9:02 pm

We worked on the understanding that the freight animation parameter and no effect whatsoever and that all positioning would be done by adjustment of the position of the shape with Shape File Manager.

**slipperman12** Mon 31 Aug 2015, 9:25 pm

Hi David,
Unfortunately, we seem to have a number of tenders which actually use the first parameter to vertically position the crew!

You and Bob implemented this procedure for use with locos, which, presumably used the parameters 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 or 0, 0, 0. Tender Freight Animations are treated completely differently to those on any other vehicle (see my report for full details) and, although I've not tested it, zero in all parameters may not work.

Cheers,
Ged

ianmacmillan Mon 31 Aug 2015, 10:23 pm

I have probably made more freight animations than most with my common.loads.

Has anyone found any problems with them in OR?

dforrest Mon 31 Aug 2015, 10:57 pm

dforrest wrote:[

Ged, you may not be aware, but I, together with Bob Latimer, was the originator of the whole "global shapes" concept.

A "seniors moment" there in my earlier post, "global shapes" should have read "crew animations".

**slipperman12** Tue 01 Sep 2015, 10:20 am

Hi Ian,
As far as I know, there are no problems with Freight Animations on vehicles other than Tenders. Tender FAs were originally intended for the display of a diminishing fuel load, which means the parameters have different functions, but they have been used for several years to show the crew on the footplate where the loco already has its own FA for other purposes.

Cheers,
Ged

dforrest Tue 01 Sep 2015, 12:19 pm

slipperman12 wrote:As far as I know, there are no problems with Freight Animations on vehicles other than Tenders.

But there would be, Ged, if, for example, a freight animation made for an A4 pacific was used in a 0-6-0 saddle tank.

My opinion (repeated) is that freight animations need to have shape file set-up for the locos they are to be used with (with variants if locos from different modellers have different cab geometry. These shape files need to position the crew in the desired location by making adjustments using Shape File Manager. Changes should not be made to the parameters of the particular FreightAnim. This is the procedure I followed in the engine crew freight animations I produced several years ago and which remain widely used and are occasionally modified by the modeller for a new loco (mainly in the way I describe above!).

Sponsored content