Jump to content
 

Abbotswood and Norton Junctions - layout build


Phil Bullock
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Have been giving this some thought for a good while now so hopefully concepts are reasonably robust - but would welcome further ideas from the forum please, especially from operators.

 

So what was wrong with the original layout?

 

Boards too heavy

Vulnerable in transport

Too many nuts and bolts

Fiddle yard capacity limited meaning insufficient operational variety

Too much scenic stuff to add at set up

Lacking in the sort of scenic detail that holds viewers when no trains are running

 

What was good?

 

Reliable trackwork - Peco code 75, copper clad sleepers at board joins

Electrics - never ceased to amaze me how reliable things were electrically - set up, plug in and off we go.

Rolling stock collection

Working signals

Intuitive control system

Scenery - drew many very kind comments

Scale train lengths

Ability to leave something running to entertain when woffling

 

Thoughts here will inform new layout so please chip in!

 

Cheers

 

Phil

Edited by Phil Bullock
Split out rolling stock
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It'll make a very exciting layout Phil, and in true Corporal Jones fashion:

 

"Hi'd like to volunteer to help build Abbotston and Norwood Junctions sir."

 

 

Yes, I've been watching too much Dad's Army I know. :)

 

And will be great to have you along any time your commitments allow Liam

Will reply to your message re Cheltenham too - sorry for not coming back sooner, I tend to go underground on run up to show!

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That's interesting thoughts Neil - many thanks for sharing

 

There will be more habitations on the new layout in Norton village so more scope for village scenery but equally more open countryside too

 

What is a daft cameo from your perspective? we have the railway photographers trackside already, plus cyclists and horse riders

 

And as far as I am concerned there is no right or wrong answer, just interested to hear your perspective

 

Cheers

 

Phil

Edited by Phil Bullock
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you have answered your own question

Boards too heavy - Baseboard issue

Vulnerable in transport  - Baseboard issue

Too many nuts and bolts  - Baseboard issue

Fiddle yard capacity limited meaning insufficient operational variety  - Baseboard issue - size has been limited in your original build because the transporation/weight issues

Too much scenic stuff to add at set up  - Baseboard issue - loose items

Lacking in the sort of scenic detail that holds viewers when no trains are running  - Baseboard issue - lack of fiddleyard space has impacted running leading to trains not running.

 

You've identified a set of symptoms that all lead to one item - your baseboards - I think you need to find someone who has been there/done that and solved the problem, get their guidance and build a set of baseboards that address the fundamental issues of construction, size and transportation then the rest will follow naturally as you had a good layout in Abbotsford Junction.  

Edited by woodenhead
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From an operator's perspective...

 

Totally agree with enhancing fiddle yard capacity, especially if it eliminates having two trains in one road!

 

Simpler access to routes.  A track plan based system is much easier than going through menus on the ECoS.  Confirmation of route setting by some means would be grand as well, perhaps LEDs that light up next to the fiddle yard road currently selected would be an easy start.  Even with my specs on I can't usually make out the points at the far end.

 

Your planned change to servos for points and signals sounds good - I'm sure a gentler mechanism will mean much less time spent repairing semaphores!  The working signals are so worthwhile, it adds a huge amount to the realism.

 

I still maintain that ECoS is not intuitive...  even the smartphone app you had me using at Nottingham is easier!

 

Aesthetically...

 

The rolling hills are well captured.  The bridges and signal box are lovely.  The card house somehow doesn't match the standard.  Rather than trying to add artificial interest to what is realistically a quiet rural area, I'd be inclined to focus on making the natural scenery as good as you can - the Gravett school of modelling.  Pempoul's landscape wasn't stuffed with cameos, it was simply lovely to look at with the realism drawing me in.  Aim high!

 

The stock is to a consistent, good standard, appropriately weathered for the most part, I know a few wagons are cleaner than they might be but it doesn't really detract from the sense of time and place you've achieved.

Edited by Taigatrommel
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts, which may or may not be useful to you.

 

A few cameos are fine and add interest but for me too many can detract from the sort of layout you build - I would call yours a pretty serious attempt to capture the feel of a time and place. Some layouts of other types do have lots of cameos and are very entertaining but your layout is more about creating a nice railway related scene that will be appreciated by enthusiasts than entertaining the general public. I'm sure it does appeal to the general public as well though.

 

I have decided that when it comes to exhibitions it's not worth running too much stock. I have nine storage roads and have set three of them to hold two trains. This works fine but I now stick to one train per storage road at exhibitions. It is easier on the operators and also easier to have a higher frequency of trains passing through the scenic section. From what I have seen with my layout very few visitors will notice the extra trains anyway (although I am sure the discerning members of this forum would). I have one button for each track in the storage yard which sets all the points on the front of the layout to bring the train back to the storage siding it came from. This is so simple and works really well so long as I don't press any buttons while a train is running.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the size of this, would you really want to go for handbuilt track, even if just in the visible areas, as suggested in #6?

 

FWIW I've always felt Code 75 Peco looks fine if the railsides are painted and it is nicely ballasted, as was the case with Mk1. Nothing will change the fact that any OO track is wrong, and any OO layout at a Show next to one in EM or P4 brings that home. However, do you really want to go EM, with all those wheel changes on locos and stock, plus handmade points? I suspect not, a decision I made for myself a long time ago, although if I was starting with absolutely nothing today the answer might possibly be different. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the reliability of Peco track either, something that counts very high, especially I imagine with an exhibition layout.

 

The basic proposition with Mk1 was to be out in the country watching the trains go by, particularly the trains that those of us of a certain age so loved in our youth. This seems to be the proposition with Mk2, but with lighter boards, although in total there may still be more weight to carry as Mk2 will be bigger. Having had the privilege of seeing behind Mk1, I can fully understand why you want more storage capacity and that is in the spec.

 

The scenery on Mk1 struck me as neither too fussy nor too barren, just right in fact for the rolling countryside around the Cotswolds. So more of the same would seem fine, although whether there are ways of making it more transport and set-up friendly I don't know. There never seemed to be long with something not running, so I'm not sure if more scenic detail to hold attention in the gaps is really necessary, this isn't a bucolic branch line with trains every three hours!

 

I guess that summarises as saying the list in #1 seems about right!

 

John.

Edited by John Tomlinson
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

i think you have answered your own question

Boards too heavy - Baseboard issue

Vulnerable in transport  - Baseboard issue

Too many nuts and bolts  - Baseboard issue

Fiddle yard capacity limited meaning insufficient operational variety  - Baseboard issue - size has been limited in your original build because the transporation/weight issues

Too much scenic stuff to add at set up  - Baseboard issue - loose items

Lacking in the sort of scenic detail that holds viewers when no trains are running  - Baseboard issue - lack of fiddleyard space has impacted running leading to trains not running.

 

You've identified a set of symptoms that all lead to one item - your baseboards - I think you need to find someone who has been there/done that and solved the problem, get their guidance and build a set of baseboards that address the fundamental issues of construction, size and transportation then the rest will follow naturally as you had a good layout in Abbotsford Junction.  

 

Many thanks! fully agree with your logic - discussions already in hand with Elite Baseboards.

 

Hope to solve the issues that way as the lack of spare time whilst holding down a professional full time job is challenging

 

Cheers

 

Phil

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

From an operator's perspective...

 

Totally agree with enhancing fiddle yard capacity, especially if it eliminates having two trains in one road!

 

Simpler access to routes.  A track plan based system is much easier than going through menus on the ECoS.  Confirmation of route setting by some means would be grand as well, perhaps LEDs that light up next to the fiddle yard road currently selected would be an easy start.  Even with my specs on I can't usually make out the points at the far end.

 

Your planned change to servos for points and signals sounds good - I'm sure a gentler mechanism will mean much less time spent repairing semaphores!  The working signals are so worthwhile, it adds a huge amount to the realism.

 

I still maintain that ECoS is not intuitive...  even the smartphone app you had me using at Nottingham is easier!

 

Aesthetically...

 

The rolling hills are well captured.  The bridges and signal box are lovely.  The card house somehow doesn't match the standard.  Rather than trying to add artificial interest to what is realistically a quiet rural area, I'd be inclined to focus on making the natural scenery as good as you can - the Gravett school of modelling.  Pempoul's landscape wasn't stuffed with cameos, it was simply lovely to look at with the realism drawing me in.  Aim high!

 

The stock is to a consistent, good standard, appropriately weathered for the most part, I know a few wagons are cleaner than they might be but it doesn't really detract from the sense of time and place you've achieved.

 

Thanks for dropping in Rich - your thoughts are particularly appropriate given the number of operator sessions you have put in.

 

I know what you mean about ECoS but any other solutions mean more wiring spaghetti to go wrong! I want the only connections between boards to be the bus ( or buses!) Would concentrating the main routes in to fewer folders rather than having one folder per loop be better? The phone ap just lists them in alphabetical order and there will be many more on Mk2....or is there a way of getting your LED solution to work I wonder, things will be more complex on MK2 too.

 

Thanks for the kind comments about the signals - all working at Swansea - and scenery. The card house was only ever a temporary expedient for the first exhibition (!) and although the building will be there again something better is needed for sure.

 

Work on the stock continues but a big plus for MK2 is that the stock is already there and therefore we can concentrate on the layout from both time and financial aspects.

 

Keep the thoughts coming please!

 

Kind regards

 

Phil

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Handbuilt pointwork or RTP?, or even all trackwork.

I'm not starting the finescale war, but Peco track always jars in my eyes. I realise it's a means to an end with regards to speed and simplicity.

 

Mike.

 

Hi Mike

 

I know just where you are coming from! finescale track looks better for sure but probably about 5% of the audience even know it exists let alone recognise it. Peco jars for you because you have the critical eye of an experienced modeller .... and I might look at hand built for the pointwork for the junctions - the prevailing curves on visible plain track should be pretty shallow on the 27ft MK2 and it might not be good to be held to the 5ft maximum radius of Peco....

 

But I could not contemplate the time to go all hand built! And we do get a lot of comments from the 95% of observers as to how good the trackwork looks on MK1.

 

Cheers

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who hasn't even got close to finishing a layout, I'm somewhat reticent to add my thoughts. However, I spent quite a while watching - & very much enjoying - your layout at Swansea on the weekend, so I hope you won't mind me sharing a couple of them.

 

Firstly, I thought the scenery was really good - except for the huge crack running down - I presume - a baseboard joint, below the house. It looked like a fairly sizeable earthquake had just happened! I realise joints are inevitable on any sizeable layout, but could it be possible to disquise them with a removable hedge or something similar?

 

Secondly, I knew from the layout's name that it obviously represented a junction, but I felt the two running lines leaving the junction and then falling off the end of the earth looked rather odd. I wondered if there was a missing extension to the layout that would loop back to the fiddle yard that hadn't been built or had been left at home! But seeing no evidence in the fiddle yard I guessed not?! I know it's probably a bit of a cliche, but if a similar design was used in Mk2 would it be possible to 'disappear' the ends of those truncated lines into a tunnel or road over bridge with a 'backscene' to close it off? 

 

Finally, the 'cameo's'. Personally I don't mind them if they are static - ie people stopping and having a chat, a farmer sitting on his tractor eating his sandwiches etc. I'm not so keen on 'moving' ones, such as horse riders or cyclists - especially when they are lying on their side having just fallen over - as a couple were on your layout on Sunday! I did realise you had more pressing matters in running the trains, but they were just a tad disappointing!

 

However, as I say I thoroughly enjoyed watchng your layout, and I'll be enjoying watching the new one come together!

 

All the best 

 

Keith

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My thoughts, which may or may not be useful to you.

 

A few cameos are fine and add interest but for me too many can detract from the sort of layout you build - I would call yours a pretty serious attempt to capture the feel of a time and place. Some layouts of other types do have lots of cameos and are very entertaining but your layout is more about creating a nice railway related scene that will be appreciated by enthusiasts than entertaining the general public. I'm sure it does appeal to the general public as well though.

 

I have decided that when it comes to exhibitions it's not worth running too much stock. I have nine storage roads and have set three of them to hold two trains. This works fine but I now stick to one train per storage road at exhibitions. It is easier on the operators and also easier to have a higher frequency of trains passing through the scenic section. From what I have seen with my layout very few visitors will notice the extra trains anyway (although I am sure the discerning members of this forum would). I have one button for each track in the storage yard which sets all the points on the front of the layout to bring the train back to the storage siding it came from. This is so simple and works really well so long as I don't press any buttons while a train is running.

 

Thank you Chris - and what you describe reflects our original intent so nice to hear that we have succeeded!

 

As for the amount of trains running - its a balance! Largely the general public will be happy with 8 - 10 trains but we want to run as many prototypically correct trains as possible - its great when railwaymen recognise what we are doing.

 

So for example with oil tanks alone...

 

Waterston - Albion Gulf 100t tanks

Llandarcy - Rowley Regis - BP/Shell 100 ton tanks

Cardiff - Soho pool - Unbranded Regent tanks

Fawley - Bromford Bridge - Esso 45 ton tanks

 

So you can see why we want more loops hopefully....and like the sound of your single button system, wonder if there is a way to bring the routes off ECoS?

 

Cheers

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

And we do get a lot of comments from the 95% of observers as to how good the trackwork looks on MK1.

 

 

Including moi! The track looked very realistic when I first saw it at Toddington. Did you paint the track at all Phil, and if so what paint was it?

 

Provided there's points in place for the stock to change direction, you could always have a kickback siding for the shorter trains. I seem to recall one of the middle sidings was occupied by the class 128 railcar and a 25 with inspection saloon. Not that I disapprove of those motive power, but should there be a kickback siding then the loop could instead be occupied by a pair of choppers on a string of 16 tonners. ;)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Given the size of this, would you really want to go for handbuilt track, even if just in the visible areas, as suggested in #6?

 

FWIW I've always felt Code 75 Peco looks fine if the railsides are painted and it is nicely ballasted, as was the case with Mk1. Nothing will change the fact that any OO track is wrong, and any OO layout at a Show next to one in EM or P4 brings that home. However, do you really want to go EM, with all those wheel changes on locos and stock, plus handmade points? I suspect not, a decision I made for myself a long time ago, although if I was starting with absolutely nothing today the answer might possibly be different. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the reliability of Peco track either, something that counts very high, especially I imagine with an exhibition layout.

 

The basic proposition with Mk1 was to be out in the country watching the trains go by, particularly the trains that those of us of a certain age so loved in our youth. This seems to be the proposition with Mk2, but with lighter boards, although in total there may still be more weight to carry as Mk2 will be bigger. Having had the privilege of seeing behind Mk1, I can fully understand why you want more storage capacity and that is in the spec.

 

The scenery on Mk1 struck me as neither too fussy nor too barren, just right in fact for the rolling countryside around the Cotswolds. So more of the same would seem fine, although whether there are ways of making it more transport and set-up friendly I don't know. There never seemed to be long with something not running, so I'm not sure if more scenic detail to hold attention in the gaps is really necessary, this isn't a bucolic branch line with trains every three hours!

 

I guess that summarises as saying the list in #1 seems about right!

 

John.

 

Thanks for the detailed perspective John.Nice to know that the balances and compromises we have accepted are recognised and appreciated too.

 

Hopefully professionally built boards with case clip joiners will make set up easier! And Mike loves his fine scale EM track - I cannot blame him for that, it does look excellent when done well but as you say the volume probably defeats that proposition. Will probably cost me several whole millionaires shortbreads to stop him bringing it up again though!

 

So more of the same? But better!

 

Cheers

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As someone who hasn't even got close to finishing a layout, I'm somewhat reticent to add my thoughts. However, I spent quite a while watching - & very much enjoying - your layout at Swansea on the weekend, so I hope you won't mind me sharing a couple of them.

 

Firstly, I thought the scenery was really good - except for the huge crack running down - I presume - a baseboard joint, below the house. It looked like a fairly sizeable earthquake had just happened! I realise joints are inevitable on any sizeable layout, but could it be possible to disquise them with a removable hedge or something similar?

 

Secondly, I knew from the layout's name that it obviously represented a junction, but I felt the two running lines leaving the junction and then falling off the end of the earth looked rather odd. I wondered if there was a missing extension to the layout that would loop back to the fiddle yard that hadn't been built or had been left at home! But seeing no evidence in the fiddle yard I guessed not?! I know it's probably a bit of a cliche, but if a similar design was used in Mk2 would it be possible to 'disappear' the ends of those truncated lines into a tunnel or road over bridge with a 'backscene' to close it off? 

 

Finally, the 'cameo's'. Personally I don't mind them if they are static - ie people stopping and having a chat, a farmer sitting on his tractor eating his sandwiches etc. I'm not so keen on 'moving' ones, such as horse riders or cyclists - especially when they are lying on their side having just fallen over - as a couple were on your layout on Sunday! I did realise you had more pressing matters in running the trains, but they were just a tad disappointing!

 

However, as I say I thoroughly enjoyed watchng your layout, and I'll be enjoying watching the new one come together!

 

All the best 

 

Keith

 

Thanks for dropping in Keith - and no layout is ever finished believe me!

 

So - no flat earth with disappearing tracks on MK2 - those tracks will meet at Norton Junction and the M5 overbridge will be the scenic break at that end of the layout. Was always the intention to extend but rebuild will be better.

 

Sorry about the horses - they need permanent attachment, something else we will do in MK2. I normally go round and dress the baseboard joins with scatter, don't know why I forgot on this occasion but as you say once you spot them they will jar. That is the only one not hidden by a hedge....

 

Glad to hear you enjoyed watching, am pretty sure we had a chat - am useless with faces, sorry!

 

Kind regards

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Including moi! The track looked very realistic when I first saw it at Toddington. Did you paint the track at all Phil, and if so what paint was it?

 

Provided there's points in place for the stock to change direction, you could always have a kickback siding for the shorter trains. I seem to recall one of the middle sidings was occupied by the class 128 railcar and a 25 with inspection saloon. Not that I disapprove of those motive power, but should there be a kickback siding then the loop could instead be occupied by a pair of choppers on a string of 16 tonners. ;)

 

Hi Liam

 

As another operator your opinions are very relevant....thanks for dropping in

 

Track is sprayed with track dirt - rails not separately weathered, you probably would not see that at our viewing distances.

 

And you are spot on about dead end roads in the fiddle yard - will be incorporated in MK2

 

Cheers

 

Phil

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Given the size of this, would you really want to go for handbuilt track, even if just in the visible areas, as suggested in #6?

 

FWIW I've always felt Code 75 Peco looks fine if the railsides are painted and it is nicely ballasted, as was the case with Mk1. Nothing will change the fact that any OO track is wrong, and any OO layout at a Show next to one in EM or P4 brings that home. However, do you really want to go EM, with all those wheel changes on locos and stock, plus handmade points? I suspect not, a decision I made for myself a long time ago, although if I was starting with absolutely nothing today the answer might possibly be different. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the reliability of Peco track either, something that counts very high, especially I imagine with an exhibition layout.

 

The basic proposition with Mk1 was to be out in the country watching the trains go by, particularly the trains that those of us of a certain age so loved in our youth. This seems to be the proposition with Mk2, but with lighter boards, although in total there may still be more weight to carry as Mk2 will be bigger. Having had the privilege of seeing behind Mk1, I can fully understand why you want more storage capacity and that is in the spec.

 

The scenery on Mk1 struck me as neither too fussy nor too barren, just right in fact for the rolling countryside around the Cotswolds. So more of the same would seem fine, although whether there are ways of making it more transport and set-up friendly I don't know. There never seemed to be long with something not running, so I'm not sure if more scenic detail to hold attention in the gaps is really necessary, this isn't a bucolic branch line with trains every three hours!

 

I guess that summarises as saying the list in #1 seems about right!

 

John.

 

 

Thanks for the detailed perspective John.Nice to know that the balances and compromises we have accepted are recognised and appreciated too.

 

Hopefully professionally built boards with case clip joiners will make set up easier! And Mike loves his fine scale EM track - I cannot blame him for that, it does look excellent when done well but as you say the volume probably defeats that proposition. Will probably cost me several whole millionaires shortbreads to stop him bringing it up again though!

 

So more of the same? But better!

 

Cheers

 

Phil

 

I think we need a psychiatrists couch, I'm sure Phil has the contacts to procure one!

I deliberately didn't mention gauge, because, as Phil observes, I bang on about it, and I think Phil understands it is gentle banter between friends, but, mention the magic word "finescale", and people have various ideas in their head about what it is, EM was never in my thoughts!

To clarify my thoughts, and I fully take on board Phils comments about the 95% of the observers, Peco track still looks like Peco track, and I think Phil turns the blind eye towards it, quite pragmatically as it is his trainset and rule 1 applies, but layouts like Dewsbury Midland show what a difference can be made, and some people think that is EM at exhibitions, so comparisons can be odious.

At the planning stage it is just as easy to incorporate finer-scale, (see what I did there!!), trackwork, and the extra build time taken over the life of a layout is negligible, and as Phil says, some of the junction trackwork may have to be handbuilt anyway, which is the most difficult and time consuming area.

Ultimately Phil is asking for input into what is going to be a supeb layout, he's a brave man to do this, more power to his elbow.

 

Mike.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think we need a psychiatrists couch, I'm sure Phil has the contacts to procure one!

I deliberately didn't mention gauge, because, as Phil observes, I bang on about it, and I think Phil understands it is gentle banter between friends, but, mention the magic word "finescale", and people have various ideas in their head about what it is, EM was never in my thoughts!

To clarify my thoughts, and I fully take on board Phils comments about the 95% of the observers, Peco track still looks like Peco track, and I think Phil turns the blind eye towards it, quite pragmatically as it is his trainset and rule 1 applies, but layouts like Dewsbury Midland show what a difference can be made, and some people think that is EM at exhibitions, so comparisons can be odious.

At the planning stage it is just as easy to incorporate finer-scale, (see what I did there!!), trackwork, and the extra build time taken over the life of a layout is negligible, and as Phil says, some of the junction trackwork may have to be handbuilt anyway, which is the most difficult and time consuming area.

Ultimately Phil is asking for input into what is going to be a supeb layout, he's a brave man to do this, more power to his elbow.

 

Mike.

 

Thanks Mike

 

If finer scale trackwork doesn't trigger the need for the couch then a discussion about frog juicers certainly will! That is yet to come....And banter makes the world go round, the couch would be much busier without it!

 

I wished I had asked for more input in to MK1, might have avoided some mistakes - but friends such as Andi Dell and Mark Begley helped massively in sorting them out, as contributors to this thread have already done.

 

And whilst pragmatism is appropriate in some circumstances it has to be tempered with a strong adherence to original principles - this thread is helping establish those!

 

So more discussions to follow....

 

Cheers

 

Phil

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a query that if not solved soon might present some problems Phil; what is the layout to be called, Abbotswood Junction? Norton Junction? Abbotswood Junction for the Worcester line? Norton Junction for the Gloucester and Bristol line? Or the proposed development, 'Worcestershire Parkway'?

 

(Actually, the last doesn't sound very good). :D

 

If it's any help, there's a box full of scenery and grass and reeds under my layout at home that have been gathering dust for years. I don't mind bringing them to use on mk 2.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

Is there any chance of you posting a sketch plan of what you're thinking for the new layout?  A couple of thoughts about the fiddle yards in particular have popped into my head, but it would make sense to see how you envision the overall scheme operating before I stick my oar in too hard!

 

Cheers

 

Rich

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Evening Phil it’s been great catching up with this thread and it’s a very interesting read, as you know I’ve not got very far with layouts myself due to changing halfway through so I can’t really say I’m in a good position to comment myself but Mk1 was excellent and it was a dream come true to help out on it.

 

I would really think about the track though, if it niggles away you won’t be happy for years to come, I wouldn’t go EM or anything like that as rewheeling would cost you a fortune but I would say take a good look and think about hand building the track it’s worth it in the long run and if your not planning anymore layouts then make this the best you can, I’m no expert but if you need any help just ask.

 

As for the scenics an cameos, I think a railway based in the scenics rather than scenics based around the railway looks better and more natural. I like the little cameos though, but one thing I hate on layouts is seeing people walking doing something or a car supposedly driving, as if frozen in time. If you do cameos have the people stood still talking or watching etc and cars parked.

 

Not sure if any of this is of use but good luck with the build and if I can help in anyway please ask mate.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Name not settled yet chaps but reluctant to drop Abbotswood Junction given that is how we are known....

 

Cheers Rich yes indeed a sketch is needed PDQ will try and do that tomorrow

 

Paul - I think the track niggles others more than me but you are right - it must be spot on! Advice will be sought....and thanks everyone for chipping in, more food for thought

 

Cheers

 

Phil

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...