Shanghai Diver

They never have quite that right though: https://www.hattons.co.uk/534256/hornby_r774set_hornby_junior_clockwork_starter_set/stockdetail This was mine...and then it didn't "add" to my Mainline one when that arrived (admittedly I got advanced rather rapidly to it!)

I thought it was printing error, but of course it isn't. My older son loves to Coca-Cola stuff, keeps him involved...so I am all for keeping a broad section of people involved and excited and it won't (please) all become this kind of stuff. Now, if it was a Stones range...😝

On first blanche, these are almost the most interesting things announced today. It is a good move...although would be lovely if they were standard in all new products (or are they and I have missed that). £1 each though at RRP.

Keeping everything on one level, within 7x5 and needing to use R1, 2, 3 and 4 curves (but assuming if anything like my son, there are 0-6-0's or using my old Mainline engines that handle R1 without a problem). Have provided a station for 3 of four loops but have given the passing loops so there can be some share ability of all stations. Set track but you might need to trim some straights. There is a right old spaghetti of points and crossings at the tops. Not sure how little arms reach? But then have given both he turntable and goods depot in the centre well. Also, I ran out of space to link loop 2 to 3, but perhaps remove one of the diamond crossings? If you want to get further form the edge, lose the R610's and reduce the length of the flex / trimmed tracked on the north-south. Can't say I know how the Hopper works - eBay and Google have only, not been much help, but per @Chimer assume it need a rise. You could perhaps do something with the most outer station loop and turn that into a rise. Not convinced. Old engines get up short, sharp sloes better than new ones but I still think impractical even with the Hornby piers. If you want a well, you could flip the whole plan 180 degrees and then run the TT and goods yard off the bottom in the extra space you have per @B McG. It is quite a squeeze and still can see some disagreements and accidental coming together of engines without some kind of Fat Controller...and no, I have not begun to consider the electrics at this point.

Thanks @DCB David for the virtual coffee / tea / beer. This is hugely appreciated and helps clarify / confirm so much. No, there aren't, but that will come at some point in the future, I hope. Kids, work and being better at this. And this isn't supposed to be the most exciting layout ever but I enjoy the building. This is great advice - had not even occurred to me but so obvious now. Also provides some possible thoughts around signalling, which I will have to get my head into properly. Now Z1 and Z2 (could be more I suppose as length and other functions require, but 2 for now) On T, this will be long enough to have the option to have something shunt out of G/H whilst something may be waiting at the good old cliched coal stathes... Yes - makes good logic, now Q (just one for the time being). And yes, there is a lot of "Rule 1" here, so even with limited space, this could be split further. Great, so I'm not going mad and my past electric experience is playing out correctly! I'm yet to build that piece out - the whole layout has to easy to take down and move (life of a nomad) but had not thought of doing it that was, was going to be a separate unit but I like that idea a lot. Again, thanks for the feedback and advice. Ben

Hello, Been working through the development of a new layout – the first that is not roundy-roundy, set track and insulfrong with HoG point switching. Whilst this will not be “perfect" nor prototypical, it is about learning as much as anything (woven in around work, travel, kids, other stuff…) So this will not be the most exciting layout but one that is I hope providing the satisfaction I need at this point. However, after a lot of reading, Brian Lambert (excellent), Peco, SMS, here I am getting a sense of over complication on electrics. I don't have a local shop to go into or anyone in this part of the world who I know to chat to at a club which I think would be the normal approach. I am purely focused on DC. The objective is to use an HM2000 to deliver a twin dial cab control solution (checked it is . A schematic is below, but I have some nagging questions that I have unresolved and would value some feedback (my hunch is the points below are not required for those who have done this multiple times before) First: All turnouts are Peco electrofrog (and I am wiring per the instructions) They will be powered by DCC Concepts Cobolt IP motors (and I have the relevant accessories). This part of the electrics is therefore easy plug and play The double switch and crossover are insulfrog (Code 100, personal decision) The schematic is not to scale The concept of cab control I get (and really should have applied before) but all examples I find are for tail chasers, not end to end I am not adding extra breaks in the track to isolate sections (for now) SPDT switches have been tagged with the same letter as the power inputs on the track hopefully for ease of navigation Things I have been trying to resolve: I feel that nine SPDT switches is too many – I started with 6 but crept based on all that reading. That and nine point motors… I am SURE I have too many power inputs where only a positive or a return, not both is needed - the DCC point motors should be helping more here to reduce the need IRJs (pale blue lines): understand the need on facing points, placing on frogs, but where the siding runs to nothing, are they required i.e. into D and E or G and H. Some seem to say “no need”, others say “yes. Is is ‘yes’ if you have power into the track after a turnout such as E vs G and H? What I THINK I need to do: Switch ‘V’ can go: this section will always be controlled by a movement in from power point Z or R / siding C D and E should not need separate power and the IRJs can go: these will always be powered by inputs W or Z (Cattle dock and goods shed, so short ish) so power input S and the return can go Switch ‘U’ can go as any loco will be powered from R, W or Z (there is no reason and not significant length for any practical movement) Switch ‘T’ should be kept: this is a significant siding in itself (and may be the place I break the track to create a further isolated section) A (engine shed) is always powered from R, W or T…but that assumes I do not want to bring an engine out for coal / water. Should I add a switch here (more a question to myself as I type)? Power input / switch Y: not required. It is a bay, straight in off the main line and the IRJ on point 1 into the bay is not needed X is required as this is a significant length into a flour mill and can be shunted independently Alternatively, should I put the droppers in where I have placed them, for the sake of a few holes and lengths of wire “to be on the safe side” and then just leave them blank if not needed? Soldering, cable management, all fine and done plenty of that, but have been left a little stumped with this. The day job currently feels much simpler! Thank you for any that have got this far… Ben

This may have been posted in other threads, but this book, free from Historic England as a PDF, is excellent: The Railway Goods Shed and Warehouse in England

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.

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.

On the FAQ page, John says:

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...

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.

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!

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

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