Jump to content
We are aware of the intermittent site speed issues at the moment. Please be patient and don't repeatedly click things as that compounds the issue.

JDW

Members
  • Posts

    1,663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JDW

  1. Class 58s were always coal sector locos, so wouldn't have been transferred between sectors or had logos changed. They only carried the Trainload Coal black/yellow logo. If it was running around without it, then the likelihood is that they didn't have any available when it was repainted, as robD2 said.
  2. I'm still inclined to agree with the others above about a double track line. It looks like you have lots of space, and lots of storage for trains to form part of the 'dance', but I can't help thinking it would be more of a shuffle as each one takes its turn, one at a time, to move from one bit of the large layout to another, with potentially nothing happening anywhere else. You said again you want to watch a train go round and round, but there doesn't really seem to be a clear path for that, just a series of interlinked yards/staging areas - it reminds me more of something North American than British. If trains are just advancing from one yard to the next, then any moves between the bottom and left hand yards are going to be pretty uninteresting I'd have thought. Train sets off, turns 90 degrees, stops again. Or if trains will start and finish from the same yard, then it means they're spending part of each lap just passing through another yard. If it were me, I'd just have one set of sidings rather than one after the other, or at least space them out so there's something interesting happening between them. Again if it were me, and I had to design in a diamond crossing, I'd look at using one as part of a connection to/from the branch from a two-track main route through the station
  3. I've been reading from the beginning and have to admit I'm not sure where you're going with this really. It seems a bit stuck somewhere between 'train set roundy-roundy' and 'model railway'. At the end of the day, of course, it has to please and satify you and no one else. I presume each of the sets of loops is the 'three goods yards for each type of freight'? - but each one seems to have the main line running through the middle, and generally a yard would either be off to the side, or for modern traffic like the Cargowaggons or 'silver bullets' it'd more likely be to an industrial siding or complex than a railway goods yard. You've said you want movement and having things 'constantly running' but only have a single track main line all the way round, with lots of trains sat waiting, will mean one train does a lap, or moves between two places, then another, then another. Apart from the branch shuttle, there's not much potential for anything more. If you're wanting an air of 'secondary main line' you could still achieve that with, say, double track along the bottom and right hand side as far as the station, narrowing to single track beyond (to the left of) the station. Likewise, the station layout is neither particularly interesting nor realistic, but if it achieves your aims then that has to be the main consideration. With a few exceptions, it would be odd to have a platform on both sides of the same line. Normally a station such as yours would be laid out as either track - platform - track - track - platform - track or platform - track - track - platform - track - track - platform This kind of layout then gives more options for crossovers to allow trains on and off the branch line - though again, that's probably only really a consideration if you're after realistic operation or appearance.
  4. Clearly, you read that as "[Having been] serviced, this class 37 [now] runs like a new locomotive..." when what the seller meant was "[If fully] serviced, this [type of] class 37 [model] runs like a new locomotive..."
  5. Quoting myself, but I should have qualified that by adding that there is no harm is throwing ideas around, discussing alternatives, and why they might or couldn't be used instead.
  6. As with many things where people look in from the outside and throw around lots of whys and hows and whats and other things with lots of exclamation marks, quite often it actually is the case that the experts whose job it is to assess, design and install such things have done the job they were trained for and are experienced at, and have come up with the best solution possible given the circumstances, situation and parameters presented to them. Of course, that doesn't stop everyone else knowing how to do any job better than someone trained and employed to do it. I worked for a large, national bus operator for many years, and the number of people who knew how to run bus services better than we did was staggering. I could never work out why we only ever employed drivers who didn't know how to drive, schedulers who couldn't schedule, operations managers who couldn't operate bus services,... when there were so many better qualified, knowledgeable and experienced people outside the industry who knew what we really should have been doing...! I had initially wondered myself why ones such as the huge footbrige couldn't be earth banks, or at least disguised by them, but as others pointed out, often it's just not practical and things have to be how they are.
  7. With apologies for going way off topic, for accuracy it's more the fact that most coaches are not wheelchair accessible plus the reqirement now that every rail replacement bus/coach must be "accessible" that means operators will send out accessible low floor buses instead. More and more coaches are gradually being retrofitted, to allow their use on such work, at a cost of around £20,000 to £30,000 per coach, and more and more new coaches are being specified with lifts to allow their use. Even though the drivers, operators, and even those on the 'rail' end of rail replacement understand that in many locations, there isn't the space to actually deploy said lift. (For wheelchair users, the experience of being hoisted up to head height can also be somewhat nerve-wracking if its an external (side-mounted) lift, as well as a cause of embarrassment as they are seen as 'casuing a fuss' or 'holding up the bus'. The same as with making crossings compatible, doing something that suits one person often makes it less good for someone else).
  8. Going back a few posts to the discussion of how a user of a mobility scooter sees themselves, I'd suggest that most would be more likely to see themselves as a "pedestrian" using it as an 'aid' rather than as driving a "vehicle", and use the crossing accordingly. It might not be the right way, but I think there's a valid argument there.
  9. Yes, that's the one - I wondered if it were a fictional creation or prototypical. It looks about the size and capacity of a Parry People Mover but with twice as many doors for swallowing huge crowds of about a dozen and rapid boarding/alighting!
  10. With apologies for going slightly off topic, I'd never heard of them or the place. I'm curious, is there a particular reason they are still there and haven't either been scrapped or sold, or why they won't sell them, or is it just the case that people have asked and just been told no?
  11. Hi @thirty2a, I'm curious, what's the almost comically short white one with red ends towards the rear?
  12. That pic shows what a difference the white skirt makes - it emphasises the 'pointiness' of the design so much better than black or other dark colours. Makes me wonder why the livery designers didn't do it, it highlights the sleekness and pointy front end rather than just the sloped top part, as per the original design, rather than making it look like just part of the underframe.
  13. The Merseyrail set looks fantastic, especially for someone who has never built anything like that before! I'm wondering if you did another whether it might be worth painting around the doors before applying the vinyls, then you could cut the vinyls to sit flat and bot have to try and touch in any unpainted edges. I'd be tempted to remove the rainstrips too, and either leave it without or add replacements from plastic strip on top of the vinyls, for a neater finish. But on the whole, it certainly looks the part, nice to see a rarely-modelled unit in an even more rarely-modelled livery.
  14. It looks to me like the grey has too much of a hint of brown, whereas it should be much closer to the white stripe below. I saw the Sprinter liveried 150/2 in Harburn Hobbies a few days back before I'd read this, and thought it looked odd, though my initial thought was that the dark blue was too dark rather than the beige, though it's obvious now I've read through here
  15. It certainly looke better with the brickpaper. I think it looks a bit tall without a canopy attached, it could maybe be improved with a large advertising billboard (or enamel sign) on the gable end, and the chimneys covering in brick paper too. If you're not using the 'upstairs' part, the chimneys don't need to be as tall either.
  16. Just to add clarity to what I suggested above about a second platform and access to the station: Of course, if as suggested in the earlier plan there was a tunnel, access to the station platform between A and B could be via steps from a townscape above the tunnel. That part of it was just an alternative to the tunnel idea.
  17. I've drawn roughly on Kris' version from above to show what I mean. I've moved the tracks labelled A and B to the right by a few inches, with a platform between them as per RJD1977's idea. I've also suggested a second platform on the outer track, which gives the impression of a bigger station, which might or might not be what you want, but does at least give a plausible location for the station buildings (booking office etc) outside the oval (orange block), and allows for a footbridge (orange line) across to the island allowing plausible access. I considered a platform to the left of A and one between B and C, but that would be overkill I think, and look cluttered. I've also suggested moving the crossover between inner and outer ovals ('up' and 'down' lines) to the right at the bottom of the plan. In hindsight the one at the top of the plan could also move to the right hand side of the level crossing. That would make it quite easy for a train to arrive in the platform at A or B and the loco run around to the other end, allowing the train to depart in the opposite direction. E.g. train arrives anticlockwise in A, loco uncouples, runs forwards, reverses via B to the bottom crossover, reverses again onto the back of its train, then departs via the crossover back onto the clockwise circuit.
  18. The right hand end as in the drawn plans and your first photo from the side. The same end shown by your last photo. That crescent shaped area which has nothing in it bar the little siding with the two wagons on - looking at your last photo I'd move the points and crossovers for the 'inner' pair of curves (the ones where the grey platform is in RJS1977's drawing) as far towards the 'outer' pair of curves as you can to minimise the wasted space. In other words, bring the 'inner' pair of curves as close to the 'outer' pair as you can. Does that make any more sense?
  19. It has certainly come on a lot since the first post, and looks much better for it. If I may be permitted to suggest another modification, depending on whether you want a tunnel or not I'd move both the 'cut-off' loops further to the right (ie by the length of one R600) and get rid of that short stub of a siding where you have the red and grey wagon. That would give the impression of a main line and loops with the centre station platform, it would get rid of a potentially hard to use crescent shaped space where that short stub siding is, and would give you a bit of extra lenght/space in the centre for the goods yard area. The curved point you take out could possibly be used to add an extra siding there instead.
  20. That's a good idea with the foam to fill the gap but as @MarshLane says the gap seems a bit large, I'm sure mine don't sit that far apart. Could it be that the foam is a little too long, pushing the coaches apart and pulling the close coupling mechanisms out on their springs as far as the slack/slop in the couplings will allow?
  21. I can't help but imagine that if they didn't notice the bridge coming towards them, they probably wouldn't notice the sign either...
  22. For most stock I just use the last three digits without the class number, so 156402 for example is 402. I find it easy to remember most of them, though for some reason there are a few 144s and 153s that I constantly have to look at to remember! I use the same system for locos, apart from a few classes which have adopted class number + 2 digits, due to clashes with 66s. 66001 clashed with 01 - I allocated single-digit numbers to shunters when I first started fitting decoders, I think to try and save typing in long numbers every time I wanted to shunt. And 66405 clashed with 37405. So they became 6601 and 6645, with others following to become 6620 (66200), 6641 (66411) and 6727 (67027). The 144s use the same, as their unit numbers are in single digits (eg 144007 becomes 1447 rather than 07). My Railtrack 121 is just 121, and the 950 is 950, whilst an MPV is just 989, the first digits of the vehicle numbers, as they are all likely to be one-offs (whereas I have something like 10 156s!)
  23. It was clearly about a station of some kind
  24. JDW

    Modern mess hut (Faller)

    That looks really good for such a simple structure. Having built one of the Gaugemaster (which I think are actually also Faller?) Aldi supermarket kits recently, I agree about the effectiveness of the printed card behind the windows. You're right about the blue, orange would have been too much! I think I'd be tempted to add door frames around the doors though. I think that would be more common on a UK building - and might make them appear slightly taller too to further disguise its HO origin
×
×
  • Create New...