TonyMay

This is what I was saying, particularly the 2nd one, but with Minories style approach, because whatever the question is, we usually end up with Minories!

No, you are wrong. Minories works very well on a curve into a station that is left-handed, as we have here. If you use curved points. Minories however doesn't work so well on a right-hand curve. I think 4' radius is possible if you try to use all of the available space; currently the main line is somewhat closer to the front of the board. Push that to the back of the board, where the TMD is now, and you've still got space for the station throat and platforms, set at a slight angle on the board (not parallel - it looks better this way).

The second is better - but not perfect. The I'd recommend maximising the curve into the station (you should be able to get about a 4' radius with flexitrack), and transitioning the end of it. I'd also recommend using a Minories-type approach to give you three platforms, and then fill in the gaps with whatever fits. But you need to get this bit right first,

But the issue for a model is the hugh standard N gauge coupling probe is right where the object deflector should be. What would be great is if Farish could have a choice of slot out coupling or dead cow deflectors.

So... how can I do that at home? Let's say I want to renumber something...

I mean, how do they do the lining (in particular, get it straight) and a generally even finish, on a production line? Is it all done by computers?

What about the facing turnout? Was it added by BR? Is that prototypical?

Well there is usually a section called "models" - in an article - if it isn't there it's missing. I was going to talk about photos of the real thing. In the thread below: Wikimedia Commons could be a depository for these. A lot of photos from Ben Brooksbank came via Geograph for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Ben_Brooksbank A word about quality again. I realise that there are lots photos that have no technical merit whatsoever in terms of composition or exposure, e.g. of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LMS_46115_Passing_through_Clapham.jpg - and the admins refuse to delete them on the basis of quality. Obviously photos that are of historical interest should be excepted from this - it is better to have a poor quality box brownie photo than no photo whatsoever. Again, licensing applies.

Hi, I want to start a thread to discuss photos for Wikipedia. I'm sure you know what Wikipedia is, if you don't look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Using_Wikipedia_as_a_research_tool I'm interested in getting better quality photos in Wikipedia articles. Since this is RMweb, I'd like to start with photos of models. So if you go to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Patriot_Class#Models there should be a photo of an RTR Hornby or Bachmann model - it doesn't really matter so much which. By way of example, the photos from Hattons are good: https://www.hattons.co.uk/32152/Hornby_R2936_Patriot_Class_4_6_0_5532_Illustrious_in_LMS_Crimson_Railroad_Range_/StockDetail.aspx Clean white background, no clutter, everything in focus. A simple ruler is a good idea, and probably better than a 50p piece. The main point is though that it's illustrative. Locos, stock, in boxes are also illustrative. To do this I'm going to ask you to set up a small home studio. So you'll need a white background, white even lighting, narrow aperture - big depth of field, so that means medium length exposure which in turn means camera on a tripod to avoid shake. To get narrow aperture you're going to need a dSLR (or at least a decent bridge camera that can control aperture), and a lens that has good optics - so not too much barrel distortion and good semi-macro optics. Barrel distortion can be fixed to a degree in photoshop, but post-processing should be relatively straightforward and not change anything about the object being photographed. To show you some that are less good: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bachmann_Class_4_tank_locomotive.jpg - shallow dof, background clutter, yellow lighting. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bachmann_LNER_K3.jpg - shallow dof, background clutter, yellow lighting. Please only upload decent quality photos. Technically poor quality photos look ugly and waste everyone's time. I know most of the examples on the wiki do not meet these standards, but I'm asking for quality for a reason. Ideally, I think they should be in "as bought from the manufacturer form" - so post-production modifications such as weathering aren't ideal. You can upload photos here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome The original author retains copyright but obviously the photos have to be released on licence for others to use, including commercial use, and edit. (I'll talk about prototype photos in another post on this thread later).

What about HO scale, with 12mm gauge?

From the top?

Well this started off as a yard plan, and has now become a double tracked BLT, and is potentially headed towards minories. I do like the original specification though - for a yard, not including passenger provisions.

Some of the pointwork seems decidedly unorthodox. But can you please provide a fuller picture of the design (the left hand end appears to be missing), and confirm that the cassette FY is on the right as we look at it (?)

Turntables tend to dominate the space but if you can find a smaller GWR design. If it is a legacy turntable, how about making it like St Blazey, where the shed can only be accessed via the turntable, giving a more explicit reason for its continued existence? Also how about reducing the double track main line to single track? And/or removing the station platforms? The station can be just along the road a bit, it doesn't have to be on scene. Both would give you a little more room, particularly considering how much space the turntable is going to take up.

The turntable implies a legacy GWR shed that has been retained to service diesels. By the 1980s-1990s most steam era turntables had been removed unless they were somehow necessary either to operate the site efficiently, or because stock needed turning. Could the turntable be removed? There is a facing point on the main line which leads straight into the depot.