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!

Bit more progress since last post - the longest section of the main frame last seen resting on the aborted second attempt is now attached to the wall, the “bridge” section in front of the access door into the eaves is done and the corner frame has been modified slightly to accommodate the squiffy dimensions of the railway room. Just need to modify the short section which fits between the corner and the “bridge”, then I can sort the legs out and start on the frames that support the fiddle yards.

Only came across this topic yesterday and really enjoyed reading through its progress. I’ve read through several of your layout builds @Ruston and I think this one is possibly the best yet - it’s certainly the one that hits closest to home (although I’m a touch too young to properly remember the collieries round Yorkshire actually working). I do remember cycling along the route of the Leeds, Castleford & Pontefract Junction Railway during the summer holidays of ‘92/‘93 and getting to where there were still railway tracks - somewhere south of Kippax and most likely Bowers Halt where the line ran to St. Aidans Opencast. For some reason, I really like this shot: the line of decrepit wrecks awaiting attention, the wonky shed, the 4F and brake drifting back to the mainline… I don’t know, it just works.

Cheers Mike! I did spot that - I tried to comment on it, but not sure if it posted as I’m not a member of the group it appeared in… If it’s the same post I’m thinking of, I was very interested in the present day shot of the same location - first time I’ve seen the detail of the retaining wall without a loco or the shunters bothy getting in the way! That photo will be extremely useful for building Chapel Road overbridge and the retaining wall.

After removing the rest of the old frame, various things conspired against any further progress, including, but not limited to, our boiler deciding it would quite like most of its major components replacing. Today however, I finally found the time, energy and enthusiasm to restart work on the support frame: I finally gave in and bought new timber rather than trying to make do with the old - the varied assortment of different thicknesses and depths wasn’t helping progress - and now I’ve got a frame with proper right angles! At present it’s sat on the aborted second attempt and still needs securing to the wall, but once in position it will form a “datum” from which to build out from - unfortunately the previously rebuilt frame will need some corrective work due to additional squiffy dimensions (previously unnoticed) of the loft.

Obviously Giraffes eat really, really tall grass - that’s why you don’t see really, really tall grass in the Savannah, because the giraffes have eaten it all and have to make do with acacia leaves.

Wouldn’t the pump have been bought in from a contemporary pump manufacturer rather than being produced by Swindon?

IGNORE THE LORRY BEHIND THE CURTAIN! (lesser known scene from the Wizard of Oz)

Different processes of formation @Andrew P. The majority of mountains on Earth are the result of plate tectonics and associated volcanic activity, together with millions of years of weathering and erosion. The craters on the Moon are predominantly the result of impacts from asteroids/meteors (one name applies and I’m not sure which). Thanks to the Moon and the atmosphere, Earth doesn’t suffer a huge number of significant asteroid impacts - the Moon catches the brunt of them or they burn up entering the atmosphere - and the craters produced by those that do hit the ground, tend to get obliterated in short order* thanks to the processes of weathering and erosion. The Moon has no atmosphere and has been tectonically inactive for a looooong time, so there’s nothing working to obliterate the impact craters or produce mountain ranges like on Earth. *a few million years - short in the geological sense of time.

Ah I can claim the extended Whaley Shunt (7’x1’6”) as a micro then - just need to persuade people it’s 7mm but they’re standing further away!

That Crewe Goods photo appears in one of the Foxline Publications - Whaley Bridge to Friden I think. Give me a moment and I’ll check - for once I’m near my reference library! EDIT: As I thought, it features in ‘Scenes from the Past: 37 (part one) Railways of the High Peak Whaley Bridge to Friden’ by N Jones and JM Bentley. The caption gives c.1890 as the date, but Dowlow as the location, clarifying it as “…at the top of the Hurdlow deviation…”