Jump to content

Shanghai Diver

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Shanghai Diver's Achievements



  1. Photos are tough! I find that when I post things onto the Scalescenes FB group. But "great" for seeing errors, but much harsher than real life! Anyway, like what you have done.
  2. Coming late to this, but I had a similar, but simpler roof problem. My Trig days are long behind me but thankfully the internet arrived to rescue me! This (of many) I found to be the most intuitive for trig work: https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/trigonometry and got me to what I needed with the correct angles give or take my modelling errors.
  3. I love what you have done with the church. I was sent one last year and am building for my son. I dare not show him the picture of what you have done - he'll want the same! I was actually surprised by how much more fiddly the SQ kits were vs Metcalfe. Almost a halfway between those and Scalescenes. Going to go and have another look now...
  4. Hattons are a single point of distribution (at least I am not aware of being able to buy Hattons products outside of the Hattons ecosystem). Whilst they are very well known, they are not known to everyone. Hornby awareness, 99%? Hattons as a retailer, 75%? As a manufacturer? 45% (probably generous across the entire base)? Hornby have 99% distribution across all outlets. Walking into Alton or Eastleigh, Rails or wherever, Hornby are there. It is that passing trade Hattons don't get (OK, stores shut for now). Whilst it looks cheeky, there is some wonderful share of market stuff going on here and consumer market segmentations. As the category leader, the (possibly cheeky look) work Hornby have done will almost certainly lift the entire 4 / 6 wheeler segment. Which is good. The market becomes bigger, more people are satisfied and all parties benefit. 4/6 wheelers are going to take a much larger share of passenger stock in 2021 than before. Passenger stock likely to be bigger share of total category, because of. I struggle to see significant numbers who have a preorder in with Hattons cancelling (I am not, and I have Hattons providing a role for me as being more detail orientated vs the more mainstream compromises of Hornby which I buy other stuff from, ditto others) and any cancellations will likely be picked up by people who go for Hornby and "trading up" to Hattons. There his one element of the Hornby range I do like, but is on the back burner for me. Whilst Hornby are not P&G they are savvy enough to do their consumer segmentation. They'll have clearly identified all this, what shares of segments are (one hopes they are not flying blind) and know perfectly well they aren't getting 100%. The only thing I remained surprised by is Hornby's price point ...and Hattons. One is higher and one is lower. And that will play to Hattons nicely (perceived value vs price point). Ultimately, I am really excited by this in what might be for a rather dull Hornby 2021 range for me personally. But if Hornby are riding 2020 growth hard, new found enthusiasm and driving momentum through a vast launch (assuming it all gets to market, ahem) it's good for everyone. Bachman, Dapol, Peco, SMS, TMC, retailers, and all the adjacent parts etc. Could make for a good bus. school case study come 2022.
  5. Thank you. I'll see what I can do with he double loop...I've perhaps been round my own loop, but that is fine!
  6. It's all good and part of the learning process and hugely helped on beginning to see problems that I had previously created. You've all pulled me to resources I have not investigated before. This is all new and very different from a lift and shift set track approach which I have used the past 40 years (with a hiatus in the middle). Ben
  7. There’s a wonderful complexity to this. It makes my crazy job seem somewhat straightforward. That’s sent me on an interesting diversion. It’s probably NOT the primary focus (and my knowledge of signalling is near zero) but is a fair point. It ended me up back at my original well. Stockbridge became LSWR and is not a BLT, but with the bridge over the end of the station could have a feel of one . As I have said, this is a fantasy location to learn. It didn’t have a TT or GS, hence my diversion to creating my own plan, but with the thought and guidance it may have more going for it now. And is obviously a LSWR / SR prototype. Both lines have kickbacks with no FP formations. This sidings have a runaround and there is a signal plan here. As a novice I struggled to see much difference in the signalling between SR and GWR. A trip to Romsey box would help but that is months (and miles) away! Stockbridge does give an excuse to push the sidings, bar one, up to the top of the board. Does this simplify things? It does to my mind which probably means it doesn't. The kickback up siding creates a place to put the TT and GS. There is some form of (not mileage) on the down siding at the bottom. I also liked the platform more on reflection – it accommodates the single siding @Harlequin has convinced me of and the ramp up to the platform was interesting. And very similar to @DavidCBroad suggest. Version 5 is the better solution I think than 6. The GS can move to the right a bit. The siding above it becomes the goods reception. However the whole narrows to the corseted middle look. It seems a little contrived to link the CS/WT link of the TT to the higher goods siding to fill out but I am not feeling a desire for the kickback siding…and it may be even worse to shunt although my 'paper plays' have suggested it could be OK. On balance I think I err towards ‘2’/’3’ (with a full runaround) with a Stockbridge style station with an eye to ‘5’. 2/3 feels more rounded. Apologies for the rambling and thanks for the support and feedback to get here. Ben
  8. I can see the thinking. I am sitting on all of this feedback, perhaps too much, but I don't want to end up frustrated. It's great trying to get to the correct place. I may end up back at a CJF direct lift but get more out of it having done all this and had all this guidance.. On the last version, aside from the kickback, is a direct lift of a real world prototype which operated until 1966 (Launceston). Did some sites just mean they had to deal with what they had and put up with the difficulties? Ben
  9. Thanks all for the feedback and builds / removals. Lots to think on. I have been working with some of the thinking - but came up with questions / needs for clarification if OK? @ChimerI’m trying to get my head around a couple of things. First is going to be basic! To me this feels like a need to keep a third goods siding in place – move the coal stores and put them in near a short one behind a repositioned engine shed. The goods train then “arrives” into the long siding and then wagons get shunted out. Am I getting this right? That is why I had three sidings BUT I also get the simplification advocated by @Harlequin The second question I have not been able to work out – the goods run-around. To your point, I had this when everything was “north” of the station; we currently have a run-around but that only serves the platform and platform goods area. Have been looking back at other plans and can’t find a version that really does this, but plenty that have a goods yard with run ins only. Am I completely misunderstanding?! Do I just flip the station and run the goods loop as per the version @Flyingpig built on? The flipping the station being more of an open question… @Harlequin – running in three full length lines to the station area is more in keeping with the prototype which had that. I felt the need to pull the whole thing “south” an inch or so to accommodate the cattle dock, but it does sit hard up against the wall. Else though, that second platform is a bit useless isn’t it?! Running the kick back off the mainline feels odd though as even in my imaginary world I had considered an issue with a goods spill blocking the line! Am seeing what I can do by working with the points placing. Have been looking at cassettes (there is only ONE four coach train, the rest are three, so workable). @Zomboid I like the idea of the diamond crossing. I have been working it into a version of all my iterations. If I am reading it correctly, is it a large then small diamond crossing or slip and crossing? When running an engine round, if it is not a slip it would need two clear lines if not the double slip? That may be naivety at play… Ben
  10. As ever, I started from a blank sheet. 6 – 7 iterations and progress has (probably) been made. What’s new / different Actually reversing Launceston created something of an “ah-ha” as I pushed the station into the top left. It uses the space and opens more opportunities I’ve also been ‘back to Berrow’ and utilised the approach for the TT: this gives me the engine service depot and coaling stage. Berrow is something I had previously toyed with I have been able to keep all the goods yard sidings – I think, given the greater space now developed A Berrow style cattle dock then fitted Space in front of the station feels adequately used – it may need to be pulled back from the edge a little Some of the busyness feels as if it has gone – in part by straitening things up And then I left it. And came back to it and made some further tweaks. I realised I have extra room for the fiddle yard. 2 feet can be made removable from guests need to stay (not happening for a while anyway) which opens up the run from the station I further ‘straightened’ tracks so it is an easy run into the scene Curves were fixed at 611mm rather than randomness I’ve found placing a few things (roads) has helped, church and cottages are placeholders I am still not sure about the long kick back – I want something there and feel a dairy more than a dock as suggested above works given my setup Shorter, to the level crossing and then just leave the line to run into the fiddle yard with space of its own? The very back – it now has room. Feels OK and the station I have “hacked from” pretty much had countryside straight after it as the main street was at ninety degrees. The MPD – it connects to the station but feels remote to the good dept. But that is how much of “real world” seems to have been and perhaps for the purposes here, is a compromise that needs to be I may be just trying to convince myself. It may be more about just pulling the fiddle yard back but it is feeling better as an iteration. Ben
  11. Thanks Phil. Your eyes must roll. TT - I have been using the Peco template - one approach I have always taken is plan with less space than you have, so fewer surprises. I had been trying to keep space between the station building and goods shed - hence it was short. Need to work on that I had got some thoughts on the top left, but am now sitting with a reverse map in front of me... CS - I did, it was with the water tower but it was awkward with the space near the engine shed Top right - that is a reason for habitually putting it there in the early attempts, but then, it was kind of a second cousin twice removed from the rest as it was not connected properly.I think maybe it may not work (A church was going there in the above) Fiddle yard, traverser. I know your thoughts earlier. A traverser is a possibility and have mulled it. Am not keen, BUT its going tome a single road engine shed... I very much appreciate the hand holding! Ben
  12. So here is my first version of Launceston for a fantasy Hampshire market town location. This has again been an excellent learning experience modelling something prototypical. That was not my original ambition, but it has, non the less been fruitful. What I have "kept" The layout of the goods yard The end loading dock The relative positions of the TT and ES The carriage siding The release loops Ability to give the front of the station building some space and a sense of "beyond" What has "lost" The double slip and the reaction of a release onto the main track into the fiddle yard The full length of the third track into the station The space of the goods yard The second full platform I have added an additional kick back, more for visualisation than determination to build in. I may be running a bit close to the back wall on the 'L' (see shortening the station). I like the sense, assuming they work, of the trains arriving with a sweep in approach. The fiddle yard seems to have room for a couple of releases for engines to move from the front to the back etc. For another day. I have not marked in buildings and key infrastructure at this point. Ben
  13. Oddly, I started and abandoned a plan with the TT and ES on the south. This is great, thank you @Harlequin (and I had only found a smudgy image of the plan after your earlier suggestion). You sent me on a hunt! I managed to track down a few further maps to get more detail. It had to exist. As people seem to ask for Launceston in varying forms a bit on here, so a kind of "record". Old Maps was new to me but sent me on a wonderful journey of old stations (and home town). I had no idea the Winchester Chesil goods yard was that big. As a kid I cycled through there trying to work it out. It's quite an interesting set up, especially if you compressed the station to it and used the tunnel as your exit to a fiddle yard. Winchester (City as was) is my retirement project when I have an attic / shed / room. For now, back to this and a weekend of developing it, hopefully to get some track sent out here in time for the long Christmas break. @Schooner It's a good thought. Had toyed with this approach as well. May still be the way to deliver it.
  • Create New...