cabbie37

Thank you all for taking the time to enter into this discussion. I am finding it very helpful and informative. I am slighty leaning towards DCC at the kick off as I can see many advantages in its adoption. My thought about going DC first comes from my background in vintage cars. If one plans to add a blower at some point, it is better to start with a simple carb set up and iron out all the troubles before adding the blower. Then you have eliminated many possible problem areas as you refine the performance. Perhaps in this case, it is not a good analogy.. I am very much taken by the use of technology and the more 'sensitive' train/locomotive control (as I understand things). As I say, I have a small roster of locos, all of which would have to be enhanced with the addition of chips - plus there would be the choice and acquisition of control systems. A whole other minefiled of decisions!! Thanks once again...

Further thanks for all your imput. The case for going straight to DCC is quite compelling, it would seem. The reason I had shied away from it was the additional work and cost of chipping my locos But then I read... (which I dont quite grasp but I'll get there) and realised that was much I had yet to really understand. So plenty of study required yet before I take the plunge Thanks once again for all your comments...

Thank you all for your really helpful replies. I am much encouraged by them. The web sites mentioned, neither of which I knew, are proving to be very helpful and have provided a lot of reading (though I must be honest, the number of embedded ads in the Gartner site I am finding difficult to wade through..) The other thing that struck me is the number of manufacturers of systems that now seem to exist since I last looked at DCC, some years ago. I am very much taken by the technology aspect but look at the move from DC to DCC as walking before I can run and hope that adopting DC in the first instance, for me as someone with very little experience, will enable me to iron out simple problems first before moving to DCC at a later stage.. Thanks once again for all the advice, it is much appreciated...

I've had a look through the many threads in this forum but haven't been able to answer my question. I am planning a small layout that, for a number of reasons, I will build in 'normal' DC format. I would like to (probably) move to DCC in the future and would like to ensure I don't build in any 'gotchas' that would get in the way of making that move.. Any advice or suggestions would be very welcome. Track choice will almost certainly be PECO Code 75 electrofrog as I was able to snap up a large number of brand new points recently at a very advantageous price... I'm quite happy to be told that route is not possible should that be the reality of the approach.. many thanks Hugh

Thanks for alerting me to that, very helpful. Being of the more frugal approach to life, I was hoping to find one available for a slightly better price. But If nothing is forthcoming, I have that to fall back on.. Thanks once again...

Title says it all. On the look out for a Crimson version of the ex-LSWR 48' 6 compartment Compo brake if anyone has one they would be prepared to sell? Mint and boxed ideally... At a pinch, there is a different numbered (coach and Set number) that I would consider from the Lyme Regis set if one of those were available... thanks Hugh

I've just bought an unboxed N class. This is a 32-165 model with smoke deflectors and parallel sided tender. I would be happy with any version of the box (I assume they are all the same - perhaps version with smoke deflectors are different?).. Thanks for looking... Hugh

I, remarkably, found a copy in my local library just a couple of weeks after I made my initial request...

I can help with this. I have a 50cm piece marked 'K&L' '18' which is the residue from when I dabbled with EM many years ago. You are welcome to it for the cost of the postage. Contact me off line to arrange.. cheers.. Hugh

If there is any doubt, should you enquire, the copy I had was from the Cambridgeshire reserve collection held in St. Ives, near Huntingdon...

So, I ended up buying the one on Ebay so I have the set complete now... All I have to do now is complete the build...

As it happens, I was in need of this book recently and, enquiring at my local library, was surprised to find they had a copy in the reserve collection. Which means that it should also be available through an inter-library loan... hth...

My apologies for re-posting something I have put in the wanted section, but that seems to be getting very few views and I wonder whether I would have a 'better' audience in this group.. To complete my ex-LSWR 4 1/2 set, I need to track down the last coach, a 4C6 6-lav Tri compo. I don't mind which Roxey version that might be on offer - the earliest without the punched windows, the second generation plastic kit or an etched brass. I have a number of Roxey kits of the same series to swap or 'sweeten' any trade - 4C1 Brake Third, 4C3 all Third and 4C4 all First. These are plastic kits. I also have some Kirk Maunsells unmade and could certainly spare a 2 carriage pack - 8890 Brake 3rd/Brake Composite (High Window). I do know there is one currently on Ebay, but thought a 'trade' like this might suite both potential parties... Can anyone help? Hugh

To complete my ex-LSWR 4 1/2 set, I need to track down the last coach, a 4C6 6-lav Tri compo. I don't mind which Roxey version that might be on offer - the earliest without the punched windows, the second generation plastic kit or an etched brass. I have a number of Roxey kits of the same series to swap or 'sweeten' any trade - 4C1 Brake Third, 4C3 all Third and 4C4 all First. These are plastic kits. I also have some Kirk Maunsells unmade and could certainly spare a 2 carriage pack - 8890 Brake 3rd/Brake Composite (High Window). Can anyone help? Hugh

Thanks @caradoc, as I mentioned earlier, my wife lives and works in the US, so I should be able to get them at her local Barnes & Noble. I shall be looking out for them with interest...

This is true, of course. I have been thinking about the various comments made in this thread about various widths (the proposed length of 1200mm I think will be ok) and have been playing in Anyrail with a proposed track plan. At this moment in time, 800mm depth may work, but, I agree, it does need more prototyping before we fire the laser up...

So, breaking news. My pal who is playing with the baseboard CAD has suggested that 3 x 1200x800mm would come out of one board with the support framework being cut out of another board. So given the discussion of board depth we touched on, that could be a perfect compromise bearing in mind width, weight and manouverability.. We are still working on possible cutting schemes, so not set in stone yet.. Hugh

Yes, I have his book, "An approach to layout design in small spaces" and should re-read that in light of some of the aspects thrown up in this discussion. Although that book is now 30 years old, I am certain that the guiding priniciples are still valid, though some of the techniques may have moved on. If there are others of his books that people might like to suggest (I do rate him as both an author and modeller) I would be more that happy to hear them.. thanks...

Funnily enough, my wife is American, and lives and works in the US, though she is here in the UK with me at the moment. We've just been looking at US magazine options and it seems there is Model Railroader magazine which she will try and snap up a few copies for me. Let's not get hung up on the differences between a US landscape and a British/European but I am interested to explore the techiniques that are used by American modellers. After all, every day is a school day, just as this thread has already proved to me as it has developed...

Hmmm.. I shall have to build a 'light' railway then... But, indeed, another factor to take into account. And I thought the model making, the wiring, the scenery and all the other bits you actually see were going to be the tricky bits....

That's a reasonable observation, and one I will keep in mind. Given my approach that the railway should sit in a landscape, I wouldn't expect there to be running lines more that 750mm from either the front or the back of the boards. It's a point well made about the height of the boards, though. Another thing to take into consideration as I develop the plan... thanks..

This is proving to be such a thought provoking thread. From a 'concept' viewpoint, I am very strongly of the opinion that a railway should sit in a landscape and I'm already concerned, with the briefest dabbling with Anyrail, that 600mm deep baseboards are not going to give sufficient 'depth of field'. The baseboards I am making myself in conjunction with a pal, who is going to draw up the components in CAD and who also has access to a laser cutting facility. I'm already shifting my thoughts to having boards 1000mm deep which will need changes to the CAD and the most efficient cutting scheme for the ply. But this discussion is helping me so much in developing and refining my ideas.

A number of points have been raised in subsequent posts: I had a career in IT. The first question I would always ask of folks was 'What's the problem we're trying to solve here?' No different with this, what train service am I trying to provide.. I had a 'scratch the surface' dabble with it a few months ago, but without a real plan in mind, rather lost focus with it. I have just downloaded it again today and am furiously trying to learn its operation... I have a G6 on the stock list and, as I suggested in my initial post, I may have to invoke Rule 1 to use it... Probably. the way I live in my house doesn't really lend itself to a permanent set up, so my idea at the moment is 3 straight boards and a 4th for a fiddle yard. However, this is not set in stone. Whatever the final orientation, these will be put up and taken down as needed. What I absolutely want to avoid is straight track, however as I think flowing curves make a much more realistic and, dare I say it, attractive, layout. There are a number of other points raised here that I am taking in. I have found another track plan that I rather like - Hayes (Kent). I am less concerned about modelling a real location (for instance, one of the visitors to the station, which is fundamentally LSWR in origin will be an H Tank and a LBSCR push pull set (another invocation of Rule 1..) I am going to use the Hayes layout as my learning project for Anyrail. Edit: I have removed the Hayes track plan as it was kindly pointed out to me that it was a copyright image. It can be seen here though... https://kentrail.org.uk/Hayes.htm I really am grateful for all the input and help from all of you, it is much appreciated... Hugh

It's interesting you should say that, I was only looking at the Sidmouth track plan for inspiration the other day. Needs closer study perhaps... Edit: Yes, Sidmouth seems a perfect example of what I am attempting to create. The down side is, of course, that many others have already done so (I've just been looking at Richard Harpur's excellent P4 layout, for example) and I'd like to do something that had my own 'stamp' on it. I am going to be working with 4 1200x600 boards, so I have length, perhaps, but lack a bit of depth. We shall see...

Thank you all for your thoughts. I think what I need to do is, rather than starting with a track plan, I should consider what train movements I want to support and *then* put together a track plan that allows that. I have already planned the train formation I outlined in an earlier post, then there will be a push-pull service coming and going, at least one train that has a BCK detached from a London service, probably held in a siding through the day for the return journey on a later train, one that has a milk tanker attached (both full at the end of the day and the empty return the next morning and then another service with an ex-LSWR '4 1/2' set plus the occasional 2 carriage local trains behind (say) an M7 - along with the occasional freight movement, of course. I will have an 0-6-0 tank loco on duty that will act as a shunting loco which could also act as a station pilot when needed (although, in this particular setting, that might be Rule 1 inspired). If I sketch out a series of train movements, that would be a start. At that point, of course, I do need them to have a semblance of prototypical movements...