Tortuga

I’m tempted by DCC, particularly for Alsop as the ability to move only one loco on a section of track occupied by another would make recreating the shuffling about of the Alsop Moor Quarry working SO MUCH easier… I’ll stick with DC for the moment though - for me it’s the thought of soldering in those chips, speakers and stay-alives that’s putting me off as well as cost. One thing I do find quite off-putting about DCC is whenever I read someone’s (DCC layout) topic, there will inevitably come a point where they describe putting either a brand new loco or a loco “that ran fine yesterday” on the track and it not responding as it should / as it did previously. Usually there follows a series of helpful comments to do with various “CV values”, which gets increasingly incomprehensible (at least, to me), until the loco either responds as it should or the issue inexplicably resolves itself (“I took it off the layout for the rest of the running session, then when I tried it again yesterday, it worked just fine!”). That kind of thing is too close to computers that throw up the blue screen of death for entirely incomprehensible reasons* and would drive me up the wall! (*like my colleague’s at work, which “blue screens” if it’s been unused for more than five minutes or when you’re halfway through writing an email or when you consider using it)

It’s probably my eyes playing tricks, but the front end of the loco looks higher up than it should? Like the engine is rearing back in disgust or there’s something really heavy in the cab. Have the crew been eating too many pies?

Which way are your locos facing when they go for coaling Bob? Tender or smoke box nearest the buffer stop?

I dunno, I think as it stands the ballast looks darker, more greasy and oily as you’d expect from somewhere locos spend time standing. I will, however, wait and see what magic you work to improve its appearance! Wizard Models do a brass etch of five (or is it six?) that includes the baseplates - got a set for Whaley Shunt, but haven’t installed ’em yet.

Top job there. The light and medium weathered ones look just right for limestone traffic, so I hope you won’t mind me bookmarking this post for future reference?

Hi Mike, The headshunt on the plan is the same length as the headshunt on the current layout: an 8F plus three BR Diag 1/208 vans fit with sufficient clearance twixt the wheels of the rear van and the LH blades of the 3-way point. (I haven’t yet had chance to print the track plan, by the way)

Hi Rob, Your idea is similar to an alternative I’ve considered: modelling the whole yard on two (slightly shorter) fully scenic boards - more of a shunting layout than a “true” inglenook. After all, to my mind, the train doesn’t have to leave the scene as long as the track does. I’ve just realised I should’ve probably clarified some things on my post last night, but it had been a long day and I was tired! In “inglenook mode” only the tracks off the 3-way point are used: I’ll probably secure a brake van or a couple of wagons on the siding off the LH point to render it unusable when playing shunting puzzles. With regard to siding lengths: The sidings off the top (goods shed) and middle exits of the 3-way point should each hold three wagons clear of the pinch points. The siding off the bottom exit should hold five wagons clear of the pinch points. (wagons are “standard” length: 17’ 6” underframes with 2’ buffers - 86mm long) I’ll print it out and double check clearances with actual stock later today - see if theory survives contact with reality!

Thanks for the replies folks! I’ve been playing on Templot and this is what I’ve come up with: Oddly enough, this very closely resembles my first design, the only difference being that bottom siding curved toward the RH edge rather than the bottom corner. Still undecided…

Phew! Glad others saw it the same as me!

Because it sets a high bar for the value of a built, albeit non-working and partially incorrect model? I can’t help thinking that someone out there might think “If that’s worth £280, then a similar one with a working motor has to be worth a bit more, right? What about one that’s not so well constructed, but of a bigger prototype? That’s got to be worth even more?”

…and you have to reattach that step.

That’s what my VWs do as well.

“If it’s leaking oil, it’s got oil”

Main frame done and secured to the wall. One leg done… …but the rest is temporarily supported for now. I think I’ll do the frame that goes where the traverser is currently sat next.

Not much progress on this since January, mainly due to free time being concentrated on the support framework for Alsop, but also because I’m not 100% happy with the direction this seems to be taking. It’s supposed to be an Inglenook layout first and foremost, based on Shallcross Yard yes, but not a slavish copy. I’ve stated to feel that the extension seems to be turning it into more of a “proper layout” instead. So I’m wondering: what if I moved the goods shed onto the inglenook board, effectively bringing the point for the goods shed siding much closer to the entrance to the yard? The goods shed itself would sit next to the current position of the LH point (red lines) and that point would be moved to come off the RH line of the 3-way point instead (black lines): To my mind the board would then include all the structures that set the location as Shallcross Yard - the goods shed, the bridge, the shunters bothy, the row of houses and the cutting - with the higher ground and houses at the LH end of the layout (closest the camera) being balanced by the goods shed at the right hand end (furthest from the camera). What do people think? Nothing’s going to happen soon (I’m still working on Alsop’s support frame), but I’d rather make any drastic alterations now rather than progress it further and regret it!