Rising Standards

Probably to take/send it back for replacement unfortunately, if there's no obvious cause for it not performing as it should. I know as modellers we don't like to admit defeat, but these things have a warranty for a reason.

I'm currently setting up an ESU LokSound V5 which I've fitted to my Erlestoke Manor, but it's my first ESU sound decoder in a steam loco and I'm having trouble getting the decoder set to control the motor smoothly. The guide I was following for setting up the decoder and eventually sorting out the chuff rate recommended the automatic calibration process that ESU list in their manual, but it actually ran more smoothly at low speed before I tried that! As the sound fitted models use the same decoder, would anyone with a factory fitted model be kind enough to read and post the values used for the following CVs please for me to try as a starting point? Motor: 9 51-56 116-119 Chuff rate: 57-58 The model itself is excellent - with the non-sound Zimo decoder I originally fitted it performs very smoothly, and it captures the look of the class superbly. I hadn't originally planned to fit a sound decoder though, as I was of the view that any decoder and speaker setup would struggle to do justice to a real manor's thunderous soundtrack, especially with nothing more than a pair of sugar cube speakers supplied. However, when I saw that Locoman had a manor project listed and Digitrains were selling a speaker upgrade kit, I came round to the idea. For anyone interested in the speaker change, the types used are sized at 22x13x6mm for the boiler and 30x17x4mm for the tender - Roads and Rails sell the same ones. Disassembly of the loco wasn't easy as the boiler has to come off the running plate, and there are various bits glued on down the right hand side of the boiler, but once the boiler is off the original speaker and circuit board are easily replaced in the same location (before you painstakingly rebuild the reverser assembly you knocked off). By contrast, all the tender needs is the original speaker tray removing, some tape applying to the bottom of the circuit board, and the speaker soldering to the same solder pads as are used for the connection socket; it then just rests on top of the decoder. I wouldn't say the completed speaker setup is especially loud, but it's good enough to give pleasing results with the sharp bark of the Locoman sound project. I especially like the hollow roar of the ejector function, and the slight squeal as the loco moves off - both very characteristic of the real thing.

Looks lovely. I'm also very pleased to see wiper pickups on the driving wheels on this, rather than the axle bearing pickup arrangement on the Hunslet.

The genuine Roco slightly grey ones. The longer Hornby ones would give a larger gap. In fairness the Roco ones might be OK on track, but it looked like under tension the coaches could pull apart slightly. I'm yet to try the bars provided, but my coaches live in their boxes so they're not a long term solution. I'm away until Sunday now but I'll try and get some photos then. I do the same on my GWR stock - I presumed my LMS ones would need the same, but they're not close coupled yet as that would involve fitting the extended corridor connections.

My 5-set arrived today, and a quick test with Roco close couplings on 2 of them resulted in a gap in corridor connections. I'm wondering whether a (very slightly) shorter coupling might be better. Has anyone got any suggestions or tried anything else on them yet?

When I phoned Rails about it last week in the wake of those extra photos being shown, rightly or wrongly I was told they were discussing it with Dapol. However, having previously been told to be grateful that my £200 should even get me a correctly assembled loco (often not guaranteed, true, but frankly irrelevant), I wasn't very inclined to mention it here again until you did. With regards to the number style on the olive model, I hadn't spotted that, but it's a further indication that the checks on the production samples ought to have been much more stringent before the factory got the nod for production.

I've just called Rails in the hope of getting some clarification on these issues with the BR model. The handrails were requested to be black, but are being produced polished as shown. Annoying but I could live with this. The backwards crest has been picked up and requested to be corrected, but they don't have confirmation that it's sorted. Like No Decorum said, this is something I would notice every time I looked at the loco, to the extent that I'm questioning whether to go ahead or change to the SR-style lettering version if possible. Yes, these things can be changed fairly readily, but on a £200 model (especially one where the more complicated printing carries a £10 premium) this shouldn't be necessary - as has been said before, it costs no more to produce correctly than to get it wrong.

@Oliver Rails - I notice the lined BR version still has polished handrails, whereas the other black models now have them painted as I'd expect (and prefer). Can you please confirm whether these are completely representative of how the production models will be?

Mine seems like it may have been one of these. I put it on the track and tried easing it forwards and got a tight spot at low speed/thump once properly on the move at the same point in each wheel rotation (but not when reversing, strangely). Turning it over and jiggling each driving wheelset, it was apparent that the rear left wheel could move up and down while the right couldn't, which suggested that the brass bush for that side of the axle had slid out of position along the axle. After removing the keeper plate to check this proved to be the case, and with the bush dropped back into its slot and the plate back on it now seems OK - running in is now in progress. This minor issue does my already low opinion of Hornby quality control no favours, but as a quick and easy fix with a fairly obvious cause and minimal risk involved it does at least mean I don't have to trouble Dan for a return. Any more significant issue would have seen it going back though. Remember folks, these things have a warranty for a reason, and by returning an unsatisfactory loco you increase the likelihood that issues will be reported back to the manufacturer, hopefully improving things for the next model.

On the whole this really looks the part, showing some clear improvements over the mogul, and I'd be plenty happy enough if it was the only game in town. The front of the smokebox doesn't look very manor-like though; the ratio of door diameter to width of ring around it seems slightly off, more like that of a mogul, grange or hall. To me the proportionally narrower ring is an important part of the manor's distinctive look compared to other GWR 4-6-0 classes, and the Accurascale model looks set to represent it well. I wonder what's causing it? Are the door and ring correctly sized but compromised in appearance by the lip allowing you to prise off the door for DCC fitment, or is at least one of them actually the wrong size?

Very interesting timing with this as the Manor could well be my favourite class and I was almost getting round to preordering a Dapol example, after finding myself pleased that their mogul lived up to my hopes rather than my concerns. I'm sure based on the mogul that will be a fine model when it arrives. Clearly however this is much further along and really looks the business, capturing the Manor's dainty proportions very nicely. Also, you're offering Erlestoke which I have a particular liking for, having had the benefit of the SVR being my local line until two years ago and experiencing some fantastic runs behind this loco. Personally I'd greatly prefer no white embellishments on the front though if that's being considered. The other big aspect of the Manor's appeal of course is that thunderous soundtrack, even by GWR loco standards. I usually fit sound myself but could be tempted by a factory fitted version, although have you decided on a source for the sound project yet? I feel like this is one Locoman would do justice to for instance! Regardless, I would consider a nice sharp bark, good spitty vacuum pump and the characteristic hollow roar of the ejector on its own function key to be important, along with a nice transition into a smooth two cylinder thrum at speed instead of every beat trying to stay too defined like on many sound projects. I notice the specification mentions current collection from the loco's driving wheels and the tender. On the loco will this be achieved using adjustable wipers as per most steam models, or through the axle bearings/bushes? Also, will the motor drive a single axle with drive transmitted through the coupling rods, or will multiple axles be driven through gearing? Not that I would be completely put off by the latter two options, but they both feature in the most troublesome loco chassis I have so I would be less confident preordering if they're the chosen route. Finally, and it seems mad to be asking this but I will as they're in the spec, are the headboards intended to be possible to carefully fit and remove from the lamp brackets, or would they be a 'glue on if required' job?

My early crest example arrived from Derails on Thursday and was put into action in the evening. It arrived intact and I fully agree with others that it looks fantastic and has a very impressive weight - with a quick, unscientific comparison it feels like the equivalent of about one and a half 8750s, and you get the sense that it should make a decent go of long coach rakes on ECS duties for instance. Performance on DC with my Gaugemaster Combi was good at all speeds with the coreless motor not seeming to make much difference from a more conventional one, though I'd be wanting to disable the firebox glow if I was leaving it like that! I use DCC though and straight after running in the loco received a Zimo MX618N18 that had been waiting for its arrival (now that Next18 decoders are no more expensive than for any other socket, I rather like not having to prat about tucking wires away). Bachmann loco design is generally very sensible and their familiar system from the 5700/8750 and other tank locos of popping off the couplings, then undoing one screw underneath at each end was very welcome to see on this after some other locos that have needed illogical looking combinations of screws removing to get the body off. The only slight snag is a literal one; the rear vacuum pipe is fixed to the body and tucks under the chassis, so it has to be gently eased back when removing or refitting the body. A quick test of the bare chassis after plugging in the decoder indicated some dissatisfaction from the motor with the default motor control CV values, with a bit more noise than usual and a slight but perceptible jitter when crawling along, so I changed them to those suggested for a small coreless motor in the Zimo small decoder manual (a more accurate name would be 'large manual for small decoders'): CV 9 - 51 CV 56 - 133 After doing this and setting my usual top speed of 150, midpoint of around half that and acceleration and deceleration to 20, it was time for another go. This made the loco's performance as good as anything else I've taken out of a blue box and fitted with a Zimo decoder. I have to say though that I do slightly begrudge this bit of extra attention in decoder setup that comes with a coreless motor when conventional 3 or 5 pole motors will usually let me get away with just setting the top speed and inertia. With the loco moving as expected and the body back on, I then set both firebox LEDs to flicker on function key 1, rather than giving a solid light and being switched separately by F1 and F2. I hadn't done this before and had to look it up, so to save anyone else wanting to do it the bother, the CVs and values you want are: CV 35 - 12 CV 127 - 8 CV 128 - 8 The red and yellow LEDs are side by side and the effect isn't that convincing, as they shine across each other onto their own sides of the cab. It's a nice feature to play with though nonetheless. All in all, an excellent loco as I would expect from Bachmann and well worth our long wait.

It's likely that the sound project has the top speed limited on the decoder, giving performance that will be realistic straight from the box as you say. A video from Dapol a few months back showed a sound fitted pre-production model running on Bredon (formerly at Pecorama), which is now owned by MrSoundguy who does Dapol's sound projects, so doubtless he'll have adjusted the decoder's motor control characteristics to suit the mechanism.

I haven't had a go at my Merchant Navy quite yet, but I have DCC fitted a West Country, Q1 and Black 5 that used the same system of sending current from one rail through the chassis block. In all cases I've now modified this arrangement for the sake of reliability so that the decoder or socket is wired directly to the pickups. Undo the connecting rods, take the keeper plates and pickup strips off the bottom of the chassis block, and drop the wheels out for ease of handling. You should find there's a little pin on the chassis block that fits into an eyelet on the keeper plate. Cut this pin off with a dremel or even a substantial set of side cutters - it needn't be tidy, it just needs to be cut short. Next, take the eyelet out of the keeper plate. You could drill this out if desired, but the plastic is soft and as I normally have the soldering iron ready anyway I irresponsibly melt it out quickly. As the other side's pickups have a proper wire connection, there's already a small hole that you can run a second wire down. Solder the new wire to the pickup strip, being careful to point the wire in the right direction to go up the hole and with a neat low profile joint so that the keeper plate won't be distorted when it's refitted. You may want a bit of kapton or insulation tape between the pickups and chassis block to be on the safe side. Now that you have 2 pickup wires at the top of the chassis, you can proceed pretty well as per any other hard wired installation, just being careful to ensure that each tender pickup contact is joined to the same side loco pickup before you connect them to the decoder.

I'd have thought those shiny handrails and smokebox door handles would be painted to match the smokebox/boiler from SR ownership onwards, and certainly on the black ones. Apologies if this is already on the change list! I can see these samples match the livery artwork that was available before pretty closely, and they were shown as polished on there too in fairness. I have the lined black loco on order with a view to representing it seeing out its final years in traffic on unglamorous stopping passenger work, whereas to my mind the sample for this loco in particular looks far more like it's been specially prepared for working an RCTS or SLS special.

You can decide for yourself as the thread in the Dapol subforum recently had this post added showing a video of a sound fitted undecorated sample in action. Doesn't sound bad at all to me, especially by factory sound standards. I'd echo Richard in saying it's likely a Mr Soundguy project, as it has a distinct similarity to his large prairie project which I have and am pleased with.

A new brand isn't at all what I expected to see announced today. It seems sensible enough, though as others have said, the Hymek seems like the odd model out. The mention of a new motor and Next18 socket in the Austerity is interesting, as although I remember reports of self-frying blanking plugs in the DJM versions, I wouldn't have said these were the main shortcomings with the chassis. My experience has been that relying on the axle bearings for current collection rather than the more typical wiper pickups made for a hopelessly inconsistently performing loco that couldn't be relied upon to move off from a stand without cutting out, especially under DCC control. I immediately recognised the wheels as being the same as on the DJM version, so I presume the same split chassis layout will be used, and if that's the case I wouldn't be prepared to buy one regardless of price unfortunately. However, if those nicely dished wheels were put on a conventional chassis (wiper pickups, single block of metal, simple geartrain to one axle with the others driven through the coupling rods), I would be very interested indeed.

The body securing screws and decoder pocket screw into the chassis were quite loose on my BR black version - not an issue in my case as the body was going to come off for decoder fitment anyway, and certainly preferable to them being tight enough to risk rounding them out when removing them, but worth being aware of. The chassis layout is pretty well thought out. I had a Zimo MX649N going spare and took a gamble on there being enough space for it to be fitted using an 8 pin to 6 pin adapter. It was too long for the pocket in the smokebox, but there was plenty of space down one side of the motor, and although it looks like a very flat speaker will be needed for the bunker, an ordinary sugar cube fitted just fine towards the bufferbeam (it can't go further forward due to the slope of the coal space towards the cab).

Apologies for the complete silence on this for over 2 months. Without going into detail, working from home during lockdown heavily impacted my enthusiasm for home-based hobbies. I’ve always envisaged this as an ex-SR station to make the third rail more believable. I also have a potential head start with SR signalling, as I have 4 Dapol SR stop signals in stock which were picked up cheaply (due to faults) with a view to adapting them to servo control; 1 with a short lattice post, 3 of the taller rail-built type. However, as it stands I suspect they’re of limited use for this plan. In situations like this I generally prefer to have a go at what I think I might need and get feedback, rather than expect people to do all the work from scratch on my behalf. With that in mind, here’s what I think I need based on my very limited knowledge. Firstly, an admission on my part. I’ve not seen any indication online of stacked disc signals being commonly used on the southern region to control separate routes. I’ve therefore assumed, knowing full well that assumptions are dangerous, that one shunt disc might have been used to indicate that a move could be made into one of multiple routes? I imagine loco crews generally had a pretty good idea of where they were going next anyway, so the lack of clear route indication from multiple signals would be less of an issue when they should have been moving fairly cautiously anyway. The stop and distant on a shared post would be off-scene. The four-doll signal approaching the station would also either have to be off-scene or right by the scenic break. A loco drawing coaches back on the incoming line before pushing them into another platform would then have to go back into the fiddle yard to wait for the relevant calling-on(?) signal. I can imagine this being a bit of a pain. I’d prefer as much of any shunting of that nature as possible to take place on the scenic section, and initially wondered whether I could put shunt signals between the loco spur exit crossover and facing crossover, this being the closest point from which all 3 platforms can be accessed. However, to get the coaches clear of the point, the loco is still going to pass the stop signals unless they’re much further from the station. I’ve used yellow discs where they seem like they’d be appropriate (if the crossovers aren’t set, they should be OK to pass when horizontal). 3 seems like a lot of them though. Finally, the shunt disc on the outgoing line is on the wrong side because it’d be on the inside of a curve. I theorised that it might be easier to see than if it was on the left, especially when needing to propel a rake of coaches into a platform. If any of that's remotely correct I'll be pleased!

Thanks Mike. That arrangement of a trip from a larger yard in the area is the sort of thing I had in mind, probably serving a specific business (brewery etc.) rather than general sidings, and the likelihood of smaller locos doing those duties is fine as I've got plenty of nondescript black engines to keep occupied. I see the advantage of putting the sidings the other way round - the train can be left in the loop while the loco pulls wagons off the back to deposit them in the sidings, rather than shunting the whole train all the time. It can of course be achieved pretty easily on the spare room plan, but on the right angled version I was initially a bit stuck for how to make space to achieve it. I also realised that the extra crossover for departures from the middle platform was reducing its length on the right angled version, so it couldn't be 5' long on a 9' baseboard length while running parallel to the board edge. The answer seems to be to make the platforms angled compared to the baseboard/wall, which makes space for a few short sidings behind the station and gives a less regimented look to the plan than before, At that angle I could just about squeeze a 5' long middle platform onto a 9' board, but I've added another 3" to the end to give a small amount of space for the platform round the back of the buffer stops to be seen. I've not really got space to have a station building at the end of the platform on either room plan, so that's something I'm puzzling over at the moment. I'm inclined to go with having it along the innermost platform, and perhaps supplement the walk round the end of the buffer stops for access to the other platforms with an underpass/subway closer to the throat end, unless that seems unlikely in reality? As far as I can see from my rudimentary signalling knowledge, goods siding arrangements aren't likely to make much difference to the signalling needed, so I'm inclined to start thinking more about that. Is the usual etiquette to post again in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure for guidance regarding that, rather than continuing here? Right angled: Spare room:

It's not shown very well at the level of zoom I used to get most of the space in one screenshot, but there was a left hand Peco trap on the pilot spur. Mind you, a loco running against that and derailing would still have blocked the down line, so a standard point is a better solution. I had considered connecting the pilot spur through to the turntable, but I'd always envisaged having that siding specifically as somewhere for the pilot to sit between duties, and thought getting train locos in and out that way while keeping the pilot there would require a siding longer than I had room for. Of course, I've been thinking too specifically about specific movements, and hadn't realised the improvement that would give in overall flexibility - connecting the pilot spur to the turntable doesn't mean it has to be used with any regularity, but it does mean locos can come in and out that way if the pilot is elsewhere. Ah, I see what you mean, thank you. Width could be an issue in both potential locations, so there isn't going to be room to bring the layout further away from the wall and increase the number of traverser roads to a more useful figure. There might be a means by which a cassette fiddle yard could be made easier to take down a traverser too if I go for the right-angled plan (the fiddle yard end would need to come apart for access when needed). I've added rough representations of where I envisage having platform faces now, and you're quite right about the release crossover. I initially started off with the facing crossover in the outer platform because I was prioritising loop length for goods trains that would be shunted by the train loco. I didn't really envisage handling many passenger trains in that platform without a station pilot, and when I did briefly try the trailing crossover it also looked less pleasing than how the facing crossover tucked into the easing curve of the platform. Much like the pilot spur above though, I wasn't considering what else the trailing crossover would allow to happen, and it would certainly give potential for things like a loco sorting out its own train in the outer platform at off peak times when a pilot might not be provided. The change of alignment needed also gives a more consistent platform width. The headshunt length needs to remain much as it is to allow a loco and brake van to fit, but I don't think reducing the distance from the release crossover to the point accessing the sidings is going to be an issue. If a newly arrived goods is longer than that (unlikely), I guess it can always draw forward into the siding beyond the crossover to get clear of the yard point and then set back? Incidentally, I have another Peco trap on the exit of the goods sidings at the moment. Would this be needed, or is it OK without due to it exiting onto a goods/loco run-round only loop?

Hi folks and thanks for your taking the time to give your thoughts. I hope you won't think me ungrateful for not having responded sooner; I've been reflecting on what I'd like to include and doing more messing about in Anyrail to incorporate some of your ideas. My mention of Reading South in my original post might have been a bit misleading, as I intend for this to be a 'Not Reading', a bit like how Steve Cox's Readham layout has structures from present day Reading and Cheltenham while being neither. I'm aiming for a Reading South kind of appearance in terms of station building, canopies etc., and there will be a similar mix of loco hauled and EMU-based services which will be imagined to represent services on different routes. There will however be a bias towards operation with locos - unrealistic of course given that the electrified route should be busier to justify the cost of electrification, but although the EMU models I have are fantastic, I treat them more as an accompaniment to my steam fleet and don't envisage having many EMU-only running sessions. Also, while I don't intend to represent a particular year, many of my locos carry early crests, and probably the majority of my rakes of coaches are crimson and cream, so I'd prefer to think of it as a nominally mid to late '50s layout to cover the period in which the commonality of the earlier BR livery standard is giving way to the late crest, green and maroon etc. Paul's plan was much appreciated and pointed out the shortcomings of my original throat arrangement. I also really like the idea of having a turntable and short term loco stabling, particularly using a smaller one than the Peco type as David suggested. There are some aspects of my original plan that I'm looking to keep too: A pilot spur - station pilot work is one of the things that really appeals to me about this style of layout. One is enough though! Ability to have simultaneous arrivals and departures from either left and centre or centre and right platforms - now achieved by doubling up crossovers as David said (I came to the same conclusion on the same night!). This probably is still overkill for 3 platforms, but I'd prefer not to have a dedicated departure platform. Traverser style fiddle yard - I'll be operating this on my own most of the time, and sliding a traverser over to change trains seems likely to be more efficient for that than changing cassettes. Specialised goods facilities - As well as giving a bit more variety in trains and the potential for unusual wagons, a daily trip from a bigger yard to serve a brewery, factory or similar here gives the opportunity to do a bit of shunting if the mood takes me. I realise this also might be a bit unlikely unless the business has been on the site since before the railway arrived, and carriage sidings are a good idea, but I'm happy to imagine that there are larger carriage sidings (and a loco shed) a short distance down the line. Here's what I have at the moment. That bottom corner feels a bit cramped, but I've accepted that I haven't got room to fit in what I'd like and spread things out more, and if such an improbable place had existed it could have been very hemmed in anyway. The top left corner is left clear in case the plan has to be adapted back to the L-shaped location - in the spare room that would give some space for scenery hinting at the town.

@mdvle - You make a good point. The reason I haven't gone for a conventional linear Minories arrangement is purely down to platform and fiddle yard lengths. With these more awkward shapes I can fit in lengths of 5' which I believe should be just enough for 4 suburban coaches and a couple of tank engines (or 4 longer coaches and a bigger loco), whereas fitting the fiddle yard, throat and station into 9' would restrict train lengths quite substantially. @Zomboid - In model form there are advantages to the loco spur over the diamond; it would give the most direct access to the platforms, reduce the amount of running back over the end of the throat into the fiddle yard, and avoid the increase in length or width that the throat arrangement would need to tuck a siding within the lines at that point. I completely agree though that it would be unlikely in reality unless the site was so hemmed in that there really was nowhere else to put it. The alternative I guess would be a spur facing away from the station off the inside or outside platform access routes - I don't suppose it matters which very much.

Good afternoon folks, After years of accumulating stock with a primarily BR Southern and Western region bias, my thoughts have turned to building that first layout I’d always expected to have by now when I was younger. I’ve done some trackwork renewal on a club layout and was effectively in charge of all matters electrical in that time, so I’m not frightened of the first steps of layout construction, but I am very aware that my first attempt shouldn’t be too ambitious and needs to be something I’ll actually finish. Locations for a layout in the house I currently live in are slightly restrictive in some ways, though that does at least help to keep my ambitions in check: In a corner of a room with approximately 9’ of useable length along the two walls. Width ideally needs to be minimised away from the curve in the middle – no more than 2’ to keep the centre of the room available for other purposes (occasional dining, working from home). Limiting factors are a set of French windows on the left wall when viewed from the centre of the room (so that end of the layout in particular needs to come apart easily for access if desired), and a radiator on the right wall which starts fairly close to the corner. Advantages of this would be that the space is currently fairly empty so can be made available quite easily, and the resulting L-shaped layout is not completely impractical for an exhibition manager to find space for if I decide to take it out somewhere. In a spare room with a main portion measuring 7’ 6” x 8’. As shown below, the door opens into the room at the left end of one of the longer walls, limiting the length of board from the door to the end of the wall to 4’ 9”. The house’s hot water tank and associated plumbing occupies the space to the left of the door, so the area in front of this space (shown in grey) is as well left unoccupied, or would at least need anything around the door and tank to be easily dismountable. There is however a set of shelves built into a former chimney breast in the back left corner when viewed from the door. If this space could be repurposed it might offer a further 2’ x 2’ for an extended fiddle yard along the back wall. The advantages of this room would be that the railway would be out of the way of the rest of the house, and there may be potential for some form of continuous run if the space by the door can be used, even if only one loop to run in new locos (the door already has a lock that would prevent entry if a lifting section was being operated). The key disadvantages are that this room would need to be emptied (the contents not being mine to dispose of), and that removal of the shelving from the former chimney breast would need to be approved too (the house not being mine to mess about with either!). I already have planning permission in principle for the corner idea, subject to approval of a final plan with dimensions checked for acceptable intrusion into the room space. The spare room has not yet been discussed, as it hadn’t struck me as a viable proposition until since then, but I'm considering it as an alternative suggestion in case any objections are raised. Like probably most people on here, I have a multitude of ideal world layout concepts in my head. Having neither the space nor skills to build the nice spacious double track secondary main line station with gentle curves and an operating well that I’d ideally like, an urban setting probably gives greater scope for using the variety of motive power I have than a branch terminus, as well as a more diverse array of traffic types and operating methods. After reading a lot about Minories and taking some inspiration from the curved approach to Paris Bastille, I’ve come up with the general track layout shown below with modifications to fit both locations. My questions for you really are regarding whether I’ve overlooked any practicalities of this, or am envisaging unrealistic (potentially even dangerous in reality) ways of working it. Right-angled: Spare room: The idea is for a Reading Southern-style terminus with 3 platforms, these being the innermost and centre two lines. While I wouldn’t class this as a Minories layout per se due to the different throat arrangement, the operating concept is the same with various classes of big tank locos and EMUs providing an intensive service over multiple routes at peak times, less frequent local trains mixed with some longer distance services during the day (involving the use of a station pilot), and parcels, newspapers etc. being loaded or received at the platforms by night. On both diagrams the parallel lines of straight track indicate the location of a traverse fiddle yard – this can be assumed to continue to the end of the space available, giving 5’ length in both cases. Firstly, the station throat is designed to allow simultaneous arrivals and departures from any pair of platforms, but I’ve not decided on the most sensible way to arrange sidings for the station pilot or a loco awaiting its next train. While I could use the Minories arrangement of a loco siding off the outgoing line, I’m not that keen on the loco having to reverse out and then draw forwards to the platform. The closest point to access to all three platforms from is the centre of the throat arrangement (between the third and fourth points on the incoming line’s route to the inner two platforms). Using curved Peco Streamline points means there’s no easy way to substitute a double slip for one of the points to put a siding within the throat arrangement, so I’ve taken a siding across the line used to access the outermost platform and goods reception loop. While this seems like a convenient arrangement operationally, I assume this sort of arrangement would be unlikely to be used on safety grounds unless space constraints made it absolutely necessary, and that complicated signalling arrangements would’ve been needed to reduce the risk from this. You’ll notice also that at the moment this is one of three loco spurs, with the outer two having their own for Liverpool Street-style turnarounds. I think this might be overkill in model form, involving more locos sat waiting for trains than the intensity of service actually justifies, and potentially less interesting than the operating method Cyril Freezer envisaged of the loco that brought in the last arrival moving to the head of the following arrival in another platform. Alternatively the siding off the inner line might provide a means of having a single continuous run loop bypassing the fiddle yard at a later stage. I haven’t included trap points in the loco spurs yet as I was short of track pieces in Anyrail, though I realise they’d be needed. Secondly, I’ve assumed that there’s a dedicated goods yard elsewhere, but the outermost line is a loop used for reception of a daily goods train serving specialised goods facilities accessed from the point that currently leads nowhere. I had envisaged this being operated as follows: Train arrives and loco runs forward into headshunt. Loco reverses past its train along the adjacent platform, then draws forward to collect the brake van. Loco pulls the brake van clear of the loop point, then pushes it to the end of the platform. Loco draws away from the brake van and uses the crossover to re-enter the headshunt, then buffers back up to the train, stops and pushes back further to shunt the yard. When shunting is complete, the loco draws the wagons forwards, then runs round and pulls back out of the loop, finally propelling them forwards to the brake van to await departure. If you’ve read this far then thanks for your time, and any feedback regarding this would be gratefully received.

A Zimo MX616R will sit neatly beneath the DCC socket, and its wires are just the right length to coil around the socket a couple of times so that body fitment and removal isn't hampered by having to keep them out of the way.