Chris Dark

Thanks for all the extra comments since my last post, lots of very interesting input, picking up on a few points. @Nearholmer thanks for the alternative track plan, I like having the rear siding, but this would mean the loop would need to be clear at all times. also from a visual i wanted to have a headshunt/siding raised with a road/river (indicated by the brown/green) which is actually routed parallel to that. I will have a play with this idea and see how I get on. @Stationmasterthanks for your input again, the point you make regarding shunting being on scene is exactly what i am wanting to achieve, hence part off scene station, thus allowing for more siding and shunting space. @HarlequinIt became clear early that the relation to Fairford is limited, largely just the principle of a once through station stunted with a non conventicle layout, if you can provide examples of others it would be good to look at, this is still development stages so happy to keep adjusting. the 4ft depth has been thought above, bending the line and having goods facilities at the front hopefully limits the requirement to lean over or access from both sides, ideally access would just be from the front.

Morning Mike, What are the chances of passenger stock being stored at this type of location during the day. i.e, a fictional timetable may be morning passenger service from my station to the junction station then return, next passenger working may not be for a few hours so passenger stock is stored whilst the loco shunts the yard. Loco then departs with next passenger trip before the goods arrives, goods loco shunts the incoming wagons and takes away the pre-shunted wagons from the prior loco? What I am getting at with this, could I reasonably add a siding to hold passenger stock (I'm thinking off the loop to the rear of the platform). Or am I falling into the trap of trying to add too much?

The layout would be 20 x 4 ft of scenic, as drawn out in my first post. there is no chance I can create a scale length terminus layout but I am wanting to achieve a realistic compressed approach, by which I mean avoiding sidings and loops which look cramped. The loop is circa 1.9m point to point and the goodshed siding is circa 1.8m along with the headshunt, to me this allows me to hold 5-7 wagons and a loco with wiggle room.

Hi Mike, Thanks very much for your detailed reply. I take note from your and Gordans comment relating to an additional crossover, my reluctance to add this in is that I think the goods loop would be quite short (I can look at this later) and may limit the length of the train. Also would it be reasonable to leave wagons for unloading on the track between the mileage point and the good shed point? or you you leave this clear for access for each? Reading through your step by step shunting, it does appear that leaving incoming goods 'off scene' whilst a light engine appears, shunts the outgoing goods and then goes to retrieve the incoming goods answers my question. This clears the issue in my head where I was thinking where can departing trains be left whilst the incoming gets shunted. I can always add a three way point but my reluctance (maybe naively) is to avoid these for a rural station. to give some sense of size the layout shown is 20ft x 4 ft. Edit - Sorry when you say the good shed wastes siding space, what is this referring to?

Thanks for that. In terms of the shunting, in my mind, if I shunted the incoming wagons first , I wouldn't be able to access the loaded wagons, therefore I was thinking that the incoming wagons would need to be left somewhere where access to the sidings would allow the shunting of the loaded. The rest of your description makes sense and was largely what I had in mind. I did think about this, I will sketch it up and see how it fits.

Good evening all, I have been playing around with a couple of ideas for a 7mm end to end. One of the main appeals for me of O gauge is the extra size which for me makes shunting and medium to slow speed more enjoyable, to this end i wanted a terminus setting. I have chosen a non standard terminus (such as Fairford) as some inspiration which means i can shorted the platform (part of it is off scene) and focus on extra siding room etc with the back story of a through station that never was. I'm generally happy with the plan below but as someone who isn't too knowledgeable on the methods of shunting and various scenarios, I am hoping of some input to allow me to build up a picture but also amend if requierd. This is a sketch in Scarm before the final plan is drawn up in Templot. The train would enter from the left. Passengers trains would stop at the station, move forward into the loop, run around and roll back into the station (i like this as it introduces movement of the coaching stock i wouldn't get with a conventional run-around). I have also added an engine shed on the loop for extra visual interest. Goods traffic would enter from the same side and the yard is labeled as above, but this is where i can't visualise the movements. the arrangement is more akin to a through station (as per my description above) but i want to shunt it as a terminus. the mileage siding is a dock siding, taking inspiration from this picture of Claverdon from the fantastic Warwickshire Railways website. the other siding is general goods, the final siding i imagine to be a headshunt. I do feel i would like to add another siding off the goods yard but it's the constant issue of adding too much takes away from the 'quiet rural station' i am going for. I hope i have explained my thoughts clearly and would welcome any input. Thanks

Thanks for that, are the original glued in place or just I clipped in, do the new fit existing holes or is some fettling required?

Sorry to revert back to such an old thread, but can anyone advise the best way to remove the existing heat and brake hoses? do they need cutting off and new glued in place? I bought some recently and would like to attempt the project in the coming days, also, what is the best way to paint the wheels? Thanks

Good evening, A little Christmas project for me is to build a small photo plank using, trackwork will be timber sleepers and plastic chairs, I don't have any o track gauges and doing some quick research there appears to be a number of options, i have think the best one for me is 0-MF based on the fine scale standards and reduced flangeway, however i can't see anywhere to buy them, apart from this post on Templot https://85a.uk/templot/archive/topics/topic_1811.php. Firstly are these still available, has anyone bought from this seller? Hopefully someone can help. Thanks

looking at the S-R-S drawing of St Kew, it does show what looks like a headshunt, but in practice would the sidings be shunted from the running line and what I am referring to a headshunt would actually be another siding? Thanks

Sorry, my comment was referring more about the provision of a headshunt rather than whether it was accessed via a trailing / facing connection. St Kews Highway and Port Isaac Road being two that spring to mind.

Hi All, Thanks for the replies, I have just seen the latest comments. The talk regarding short headhunts due to sorted trains makes perfect sense. The point regarding headshunts not being widely provided I don't necessarily agree with from my experience (typically involves reviewing historic maps). The vast majority of wayside stations, typically on single line branches have a similar arrangement of headshunt accessed via facing points with sidings accessed reversely from the headshunt, as per the station map in my first post.

Has anybody got a picture of where the recesses are? i can't for the lift of me see the location.

@martin_wynne Unfortunately i can't attach the .box file but i have got an image of Camerton approach where the V's look quite large (small), maybe just trick of the camera

Thanks for both of your replies. I am aiming to use Camerton as a base for an 0 gauge layout,, essentially using the layout as it was when Camerton was a through station but bringing the loop all one side of the bridge as it will be treated like a terminus, to aid operational interest. When i am on my PC i will upload my box file but a fair amount of compression is applied to achieve this, like with most models, it's trying to balance up all the compromises to achieve something that satisfy you. I am wanting to use the longest switches i can but am limited with space, so 12ft switches and 1:8V on the running lines seemed a good compromise, I did try tracing the map as per your link Martin but the layout as a through station doesn't line up too well so gave up on it, i shall try again later.

Thanks for the replies. I note the length of the switches at Minehead, i'm planning a terminus based on Camerton, at the moment i am using 1:8 Vs with 12ft switches and a single 1:6v with 9ft switch for a siding, would this be 'prototypical' or are these quite short, even for a single line branch?

Hi All, Whist planning my layout i typically spend hours trawling through map websites for inspiration, whilst i know these maps are not completely accurate or scaled one thing that seems common are headhsunts which are shorter than the sidings they serve, i have attached a plan of Bishop's Nympton from 1903 which clearly indicates the headhsunt for the 2 sidings is significantly shorter, as already said i appreciate this isn't fully to scale but there is more than enough difference to suggest my observation is correct. I guess my questions is why would this be the case, is this due to available land? operation? On the face of it the shorter sidings limits the number of wagons that can be shunted and would likely take longer. Rightly or wrongly, when planing my layout i try to make my headshunt longer than the sidings to allow full flexibility. I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Many Thanks

Good Morning All, I am currently sketching out numerous track plan proposals in Templot for my proposed 0 gauge layout. Those familiar with Templot will be aware of the (whatever you want) approach the software offers which is fantastic. when creating points I typically choose 10-12ft GWR switch with a 1:7 V. It got me thinking, for the single line branch with small yard which i am designing, is this prototypical or would V be tighter or switches be shorted? was there a standard configuration for "typical" GWR branch lines? The plus of having shorter/tighter points is the extra space it provides but always like to be prototypical where possible. Many Thanks

Thanks for the replies all. All grey it is . Slot easier that way

I’ve painted the buffer beam black and the buffer casings grey as the instructions. Should I leave these black or just do the whole thing in grey? Is there a definitive answer the to the colour schemes or did it vary?

Thanks for your reply, I have seen this image but it is hard to define between the dark grey and black. I have added my thoughts below, are these correct? The GWR grey on the axle boxes also is for all the brake gear, the only black being the soll bar (underframe) Sorry for being so basic in my explanations

Hi all, Hopefully I can gain the answer I need from this thread, I am in the process of building and painting the Conflat A wagon and I am struggling to identify the colour of items, partly because of my lack of technical knowledge but also I don't believe the instructions cover all areas. I havn't got any trusted literature or images which show the wagon and I am conscious of using online imagery due to inaccuracies. Can any one advise, in simple layman terms, the colour of the Conflats including underframes and/or share images of them. The model is to depict a GWR Conflat A in WW2. I have the colours I needs I just would like confirmation on what needs to be painted each colour Thanks in advance.

In my mind i'm thinking about just painting the outside/top of the body prior to assembly, leaving the inside clean for me to use the solvent weld to work, using capillary action this should work it's way through providing solid construction. once complete i can then paint the inside and bottom areas which don't need to be as neat anyway. just out of interest, does anyone have any images of correctly painted GWR conflat wagons? following my miss information from google previously i am conscious of not just googling and going with what i find..... I'm probably over thinking things and should just get on with it and give it a go, i just like to be satisfied in my mind i am undertaking the right approach and won't end up disappointed at the end haha. Thanks

Thanks again. I might change the title of this thread as a kit walk through lol. I started putting the kit together and read through the instructions, assembly and painting and noticed some areas are to be either different colours such as the buffer casing and buffer beam but also it recommends painting some areas prior to construction due to access once the model is made. On Facebook I was told to always paint the kit once built but the more I think about it the more painting the kit (outside at least) makes sense. Can I hear your views and experiences on this please, the obvious fear is painting once completed and getting accurate and tidy finishes when painting. Also if anyone know any threads which goes through the process of a kit that would be very helpful. thanks again

Me again.... I have been asked upon ordering whether I require heavy or light chain for my conflat shackles. One load will be a container and the other load will be a tractor/farm machinery. Is there a standard approach or does it not really make any difference? I have tried googling but not come up with an answer. Many thanks