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

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

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

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

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

I think it is "hand of god" for now.

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

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.

Wood and trees: took me ages to see the MPD problem. Now can. Completely get it. Hmmmm. Initial plays suggest I may need another foot of board...which I probably won't get away with. I have a better goods siding set up. Maybe bye bye TT as so many others have had to do!

Yes, fair enough. BW was waaaay off my radar I must admit.

Hello, been working with the feedback and a clean Railmodeller template to rebuild this. There are a few notes as am playing a little. Three versions attached (of which I think two are just an aesthetic decision). 1) The Flying Pig / David version, rotated by 3 degrees 2) The same, but at 0 degrees (the rebuild was cleaner and neater so I found more room) 3) The thought I raised based on the feedback of flipping the station and putting the long one at the top On balance the 3 degree twist seems to work better. It is more pleasing and gives a little more depth if you see it at eye level. I have added a kick back, more to see how this impacts space / placeholder that can go, the execution is probably not right (the approach was inspired by Zomboid with the cross over!) There is room for the coach siding and can probably create a little more as can start the entry easier. My only thought, even its its current form, is there is barely room to pull out three coaches and then shunt them in. But the rest is beginning to feel reasonably satisfactory. The only other piece I have called out is a space for placing stock when changing over per Phil's comment, if I build in some kind of industry or go down the dairy route. I have mangled to do this, in the main, with medium Streamline points which is an improvement from the initial attempt. This second is effectively the same, albeit not rotated. Not as interesting but thought I'd share (also has things in place before I tried to create more space for the ability to run the coaches into the siding). This final one, I don't think works. I flipped the station so the long platform is at the top. It still gives the coach siding (and the associated shunting challenge) but actually, because of giving space to the SB reduces the goods yard sidings. Overall, it feels less successful (if any are) but maybe gives more space for scenic additions at the back. I have ideas on the scenic part (and things like water towers etc.) just have not added those in. Thoughts? An improvement? Hopefully it reflects the feedback which certainly was a huge clarifying process! Ben