[Scale speed calculator]

11 hours ago, mikesndbs said:

What is the formula behind this calculator please?

 

Trying to work out speed over 609.6mm

 

It should be "speed = distance / time" with whatever factors are needed to convert from the input units (ie millimetres and seconds) to the desired output units (kilometres or miles per hour).

[New Line and Station Building Mock Up]

7 minutes ago, Ray Von said:

Would love to join the two lines, but space is limited and that dictates manoeuvrability back and forth over point work.  But, thinking of the future - I see this layout as a good "central section" whereupon I can extend left and right into longer sidings and platforms.

 

I was thinking about replacing the curve that lies between your double slip and the straight part of your stabling siding between platforms 2 and 3 with a turnout and then connecting that to the gap that you currently have been the medium radius point that you've laid in place and the track that forms platform 2.  What I was thinking about was the possibility of bringing a light engine from your track work at the bottom right of your photograph into that stabling siding, and then reversing via the link I'm suggesting to roughly where you have laid the medium radius point and then drive into a rake of coaches that are stabled in platform 2 ready to form a train to wherever that line goes.  It's just a movement that is slightly different.

 

I can see how you could extend the layout, but if you do that then you'll have a fifth platform between platforms 2 and 3.  At the moment, it's less than a coach in length, but if you extend it, it could take a proper sized train.  You might want to consider that before you number your platforms.

[New Line and Station Building Mock Up]

That looks good, although I'd have been tempted to have a bit more space between the gable end of the station building and the locomotive that is sitting in your rear platform.  A locomotive hitting the buffers would likely put them through the station building!

 

Also, is there any scope to add a connecting line between the approach to the second platform from the rear and that stabling siding that you have between platforms 2 and 3?  That would allow you to run a locomotive between the two parts of the station.  That is, although platforms 1 / 2 and 3 / 4 may serve different destinations, I'm assuming there is only likely to be one locomotive depot in the area at the time period you are modelling.

[Still scribbling...]

Nice drawing - did you ever progress this and if so, did you end up with an operating roller shutter door?  If so, how did you do it?

[Faffing with Fiddleyards!]

Sounds like a good idea to me.  Assuming that the new board is not visible from the front and what you are proposing to add can only been seen through the bridge, then you won't need much in the way of scenery beyond continuing the cutting to the rear and ballasting the track, since that's about all someone will be able to see. 

 

Therefore, in my view go for it, especially since it reduced the number of times you need to move the fiddle yard when operating. 

[00 track finalisation - Where to isolate?]

Ideally you would have installed isolated sections in the places that you want to park trains and feed these through on-off switch.  I guess the question is how easy it would be to add a few insulated rail joiners at this point in time?

[Due to actions by the RMWeb team, who decided to support the toxicity of @woodenhead and "punish" me by deleting all the images I've uploaded, this content has been redacted.]

I'd say that writing a book to impart your knowledge would be a good idea - it means that your knowledge will outlive you.

 

I think the problem is that none of us know everything and there is probably a human tendency to assume that what we do know is more important than what we don't know.  Some individuals naturally have a greater desire to learn and expand their knowledge than others.  Some will just learn information that is easy to acquire.  There are hundreds of books with photographs that show train formations and therefore it is easy to know what a real train looked like at a particular point in time, whether that is a passenger train or a working from a China Clay site.  It's therefore easy to try and get that right.  Similarly, most of us have visited dozens of railway stations, so they are places that we are familiar with, but few have access to industrial sites.  Our knowledge of the operation of such facilities has to be acquired second hand from those who work at such sites or from knowledgeable individuals who have written reference books on the subject for those who are interested.  If the knowledge isn't easy to acquire, then it is probably assumed by many to be less important.

 

I'd also say that 'ignorance is bliss' and what we don't know doesn't really bother us.  As an example, I was at a model railway exhibition a few years back and looking at an exhibit with a fellow club member during a break from operating our club layout.  To me, the little harbour scene at one end of the layout was a nice scenic area.  However, to my fellow club member, there was loads of things that were wrong.  The mooring ropes were the wrong way round and there weren't enough of them for the size of the boat that was tied up.  He is a retired seaman, so knows all about boats from his time in the merchant navy.  Since I have no knowledge of the subject, I never noticed the mistakes.

 

Another club member shakes his head at the signalling on some layouts, which seem to have signals randomly placed for scenic effect.  Missing trap points, incorrect signals and incorrectly placed signals all spoil the illusion for him, because he is a retired BR Signal Engineer.  For me, it's unrealistic civil engineering details, since that's what I studied at university.  Embankments slopes that are overly steep, roads that are too narrow and junctions that are way too tight to accommodate the 44 tonne articulated vehicles that are placed as though they serve a yard that would be almost impossible for them to enter, let alone manoeuvre in.  I recall one reasonably nice layout where the access to the fiddle yard is hidden by a bridge over the railway that was being demolished.  The problem being that what was left of the bridge would have fallen down under the weight of the plant sitting on top and Network Rail would never have approved the Method Statement for the demolition sequence being portrayed - especially not over a live railway.

 

However, to those working in other occupations, such issues probably wouldn't be picked up on.  To many the representations of China Clay facilities on the layout are simply there as a 'label' to say 'these are the sidings that I shunt my China Clay wagons into'.  'I have no idea what actually goes on there, but I shunt the wagons into this siding and then take them out again'.

[Due to actions by the RMWeb team, who decided to support the toxicity of @woodenhead and "punish" me by deleting all the images I've uploaded, this content has been redacted.]

I'm not familiar with the china clay industry or particularly interested in the details of how they operate, but I agree that many modeller's representations of industrial structures are, in general, too small.   As far as I am concerned, a 'shed' that is one metre in length isn't that big and I agree with your sentiment that if you are going to represent an industry, then you need to try and capture the scale of the setting relative to the trains.  As has been said above, many structures tower over the trains that serve them.

 

Unfortunately, looking at model kits on the market, few are anywhere like big enough to dominate their surroundings, but I find that's not just a problem with industry.  Many buildings including houses, shops and churches seem unrealistically small in my eyes.

[Ditch the Like Button - RANT!]

Well, I suppose that's a good point.  Do we all understand and use these buttons in the same way?  The answer is probably no.  I would tend to reserve the 'Craftsmanship/Clever' button for what I see as a high standard of modelling or an ingenious solution to a problem.  I suppose I could claim it's a high class of 'Like'.  For a well written informative post, I would tend to use the 'Informative/Useful' button.  That is a sort of thanks for sharing type comment: ie it has probably taught me something that I didn't know or given me something to think about.

[Ditch the Like Button - RANT!]

Well I've hit the 'Agree' button a few times in this thread.  As a reader of threads on RMWeb, I hate the pointless 'me too', 'wow' and 'thanks for posting' type posts.  I dislike revisiting a thread that I've contributed to in the past simply to discover that the new post says nothing more than 'nice modelling'.  I just think, could you not have hit the 'Like' button instead!  What I would like to see is a well crafted original post followed by a number of well crafted or at least relevant follow on posts that add to the conversation or body of information.  That is, I'd like threads to be a future reference source that are not cluttered up with pointless comments of agreement between the more valuable posts.

 

With that in mind, I therefore read posts and if I don't have a question that I want to ask, I don't have any new information to contribute and don't have an interesting statement or observation that I feel able to make, but I either agree with the sentiment of the post or admire the craftsmanship that has been displayed, then I will tend to use the various 'Like' buttons.  If I feel that I have something worthwhile to contribute, then I will do so, irrespective of whether or not there was a like button.  As such, I personally don't have any issue with the 'Like' button and see it as a non-verbal form of communication in the same way as a 'nod' or a 'smile' in a physical conversation.

 

I'll leave you to decide whether or not this particular post adds anything to the discussion.

[C+L underlay and Carr's ballast]

6 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Hi Matt, I hope you'll find a solution that works for you. Incidentally, I have just bought some more of the neoprene foam that I used in this post, although in 2mm thickness. C+L don't seem to have it anymore, but it is easily available on ebay now. I got mine here (no connections).

 

The 5mm thickness is listed on the C&L Website as being available - https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/Carrs-B-FOAM-UNDERLAY-1-M-X-0-5-M-X-5MM-p129151249.  It's also cheaper than the same sized sheet on that e-bay store, albeit the e-bay seller seems to have a wider range of sizes and thicknesses available.

[Initial Track Plan]

How does an inbound train access your head-shunt to then propel into your kickback sidings?  It looks like it would need to proceed to a platform road and then reverse out on the outbound track to your bridge to access the head-shunt, which seems a little convoluted.