Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'd echo the mild disappointment in the lining decision. I'd certainly rather a visible overlap or minor misalignment than the omission of quite a notable piece of decoration. I can't count the number of models in my collection with boiler bands made up of off centre striping and two sides that don't quite marry up at the top, would this be anything more dramatic? Small imperfections tend to blend away at normal viewing distance, complete absences not so much. I'm put in mind of the Hornby streamlined Duchess where the lining over the complex front end shape seemed to be made up of a few passes, that is judging by the slight overlaps visible on extremely close inspection (and admittedly a particularly missaligned example I recall being posted here upon release). I assume that samples of the D have already been attempted with the lining and found to be unsatisfactory, so I'm sure Rails and co. are making what they feel are the best choices for the model, but maybe a sudden inspirational solution will arise from the factory. I'll await the final samples before making my decision on an order.
  2. I'm sympathetic to the disappointment being reasonably expressed here, it strikes me as particularly understandable given the stacked delays of various origins, being as they were, usually accompanied by a comprehensive press release and appetite building reassurances of "correct, down to the finest detail", along with the somewhat unquantifiable "museum quality". As for the emotive denouncing of the whole model or the entire Rails brand, I think this has been suitably rebuffed above. To add a slightly different angle to discussions, it does strike me as a pity that the range wasn't able to launch with the Boxhill variants, as seemingly planned. These early versions look truly stunning from all images I've seen so far and likely would have been better set to weather the particularly judgemental hunger that comes with a first delivery. It's a pity the rest of the range is riding in under the shadow of this rather than on the wave of celebration I think would have accompanied Boxhill. I trust that in the coming months when all variants have been delivered that most will be able to make a balanced judgement on the whole range, taking into account the various pros and cons of each model. As for the £30 price difference. I feel there is an overall refinement to the Rails offering which is supperior to that of the, also very good, Hornby model. This is, of course, a subjective point and I accept some may prefer the visuals of the alternative. Looking at a purely feature based criteria though, the price jump brings both an illuminated firebox and factory fitted speaker. Once again, if these are of value or use is up to individual, but they do represent a clear justification of a significant portion of the price leap. As seems to be the conclusion in so many threads, you pays your money and you takes your choice. I'm personally still gleefully anticipating my terrier in due course, being thankful that the issue doesn't affect my planned variant. I'm also equally excited for the eventual arrival of the D class, but I do concede that the events of this release have impacted at which point I will have the faith to lay down a deposit or pre-order for that project. I hope the Terrier is an overall success, that Rails and Dapol continue to learn and grow both individually and in partnership, and that many more models lay ahead.
  3. Given all the Rocket speculation, here's an image from the BBC documentary earlier this year.
  4. Hello again, Following all the helpful advice above I've been reworking my plan, largely inspired by @DavidCBroad's posted image. I've also made the switch from SCARM to AnyRail, so I've spent a few nights getting to grips with the new software. To cover a few thing I've been thinking over during this process: The shape of the layout feels less square (well, as little as I think is possible with a square work area and given what I'm after!). I'm pleased to have lost the single set track point and associated tight curve, I think the curves look reasonable enough now, but please once again flag up anything concerning. I did wonder about clearance between lines in a couple spots. While I've adhered to the the general rule mentioned above of avoiding facing points, I have made an exception with the curved crossover to the left of the layout. This was for two reasons, firstly to avoid any fouling on the platforms of the station and secondly to allow the center platform to be used as an up or down line, perhaps this kind of use isn't particularly prototypical? I've decided to lose the coal drop in the shed area in response to the Didcot/Bluebell discussion above. In it's place I'm thinking of a small coal tower on the top entry line to the turntable. I'm hoping this should be more in line with something like the NYMR sheds and the size of line I'm trying to recreate. The one question I'm having trouble progressing is dealing with how this tower would be loaded. Would road access to a bunker be a better option than coal wagons, particularly given the need to access by the turntable? The shed area does feel a bit empty now, particularly when I remove the top line from the turntable. Any ideas of how to use this would be interesting, whether that's track or scenery related. Give the preservation theme I was considering a line of out of use locos perhaps culminating in a more modern styled private owner shed. I feel a lot more comfortable with the amount of space on the board now for scenery and shaping of the setting. Would there be merit in placing some points between some of the storage lines behind the backdrop to allow for multiple shorter trains to be stored on single lines easier? Apologies for not taking the time to draw in any structures this time. I hope you can picture what I've talked about above between the descriptions and the reference of the previous posts. Thanks in advance for any feedback.
  5. Hello all, Firstly, thanks so much for this many useful and thought out responses in such a short time, it's really appreciated. It certainly seems like a more major rethink may be in order, which I'll embrace rather than feel discouraged by! I'd never even considered right or left hand running, but now it's mentioned seems such an obvious oversight I know I'd never have been able to look past it if I realised once laid. Better to make the mistakes now. Regarding the preservation theme, @Zomboid, I must admit this is mainly driven by the desire to run a broad mixture of not necessarily matching locos (too many already purchased before track is laid!). I think it's important to me to have some rough form of logic to the setting, so I'll avoid reverting to just running in a generic period steam setting, I need to provide myself some vague reasoning why my Britannia is stabled with an SECR P! I do also find that having a clear boundary of what is 'allowed' helps control the stock acquisition bug, or maybe it just feeds it by putting a tantalising completest goal vaguely in sight... I'll let you know if I end up with eighteen Black Fives! But back on topic, I can certainly see that the two main sections of the layout are quite mismatched in that context, the Bluebell/Didcot example is a very helpful way to frame it. That said, having also seen the growth of newly laid sidings and sheds at various preserved stations around the country, I hope the shed doesn't need to be scaled back too much to become believable. I picked up the recent Peco special on modeling heritage lines which made some very interesting points about the distinctive quirks which need to be taken into account, I'll have to schedule a reread of that this weekend. @DavidCBroad, that sketch is fantastic, thank you. After looking at the same plan for so long and tweaking bits back and forth it can be really hard to see the blank canvas of the board for what is and not to fall into familiar traps when trying to start fresh. I know it's not a drastic change, but it's massively useful to me as a jumping off point. The sweeping station looks far classier than my unnaturally blocky version. The storage loops make much more sense than piles of fragmented sidings and certainly offer better opportunity for ground space to let the scenes breathe. I shouldn't already be imagining the town high street over the top with moving road vehicles and trams should I? I'll take all that's been offered on board and will try to work on my SCARM plan over the next few days!
  6. Hello RMweb, 'Long time listener, first time caller!' I've been working on planning my first 'proper' layout for a while now and after a few false starts finally have my baseboards built. Yet I find myself struggling to finally commit to laying that first piece of track and crossing the point of no return. Before I do this I'd really appreciate anybody willing to cast an experienced eye over my plan for the sake of spotting any rookie errors, and for any suggestions of general improvements, I'm really open to tweaking things or even more major rethinks. The general concept A medium sized line based 'just outside of nowhere' in the modern preservation era (a cop out, I know!), primarily steam locos with a scattering of early diesel, running both passenger and freight trains. I'm approaching it with the ethos of aiming realistic, but being happy to comprise as the medium demands. Ultimately I'd like to have something pleasing to sit back and look at as a train set, whilst still offering fun operational factors, plus the opportunity to get lost in a few different distinct scenes of a fleshed out miniature world! What I've got to work with A loft room with access hatch (hatch sits just inside the edges of the bottom left corner of the baseboard in the diagram). Solid frames already built, with a 9mm ply baseboard, mounted against the walls of the room. Dimensions are based on the most board I could get on each side taking into account hatch, accessing windows and my reach! Measurements show on the diagram. The overhang corners are not built yet and could be resized, likewise there is the potential to extend other sections of the board slightly. A lowered baseboard, about 30cms, this being the left hand end where the bridge is located on my diagram. Code 100 track. This is my first venture outside of the world of set-track and, after channeling many hours into reading various threads on the merits of 100, 75 and bullhead, my hand was forced with the bargain purchase of two new 25 packs of Peco wooden sleeper code 100 flexi for £13(!!) - A local auction for house clearances, before you ask! Points have not been purchased, I've yet to settle on whether to go down the route of electrofrogs, something I have no experience with. Would they be essential or beneficial to what I've planned? DCC - I've got a Gaugemaster Prodigy system already purchased. Key requirements A running loop, ideally 2, for watching the trains go by The capacity to handle 4 coach trains A few sidings for light shunting A station A prominent shed scene for storage/display of locos Storage on the layout for an additional rake of coaches and various wagons A bridge, or similar feature, on the lowered left-hand side of the layout A turntable What I've got so far The diagram will hopefully offer a decent summary of what I've managed to draft so far, but to explain a few features. The grey box on the left is a bridge, I've got a Metcalfe viaduct built which could fit nicely here. The red sections in the depot are an engine shed and raised coal drop. The brown area represents a road bridge and raised town scene with retaining wall. I've worked in a hidden storage siding under this scene which would be accessed under the guise of a tunnel running off under the town, I'm not sure how well realistically this would work considering loading gauge and overhang. There's one set-track point in the top left hand corner to access the short station terminus (for autotrains/DMU) and additional sidings, this does cause me some concern on the radius front. I've not settled on a purpose for the top left corner sidings, a goods shed or cattle stage come to mind. I've also no set ideas for landscape or scenery for the bottom left corner and big sweeping curve section yet, other than maybe trying to imitate a light cutting. so any ideas! Hopefully this is enough information to get some feedback. If there's something I've missed out or can elaborate on, please mention. My biggest concert is that I might be trying to squeeze too much track in and as a result not giving the scene and setting room to breathe, but this is the only way I found to fit in everything I was hoping for. All criticism and advice welcome and gratefully received. Thanks for taking the time to read!
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.