davegardnerisme

Thanks for all the pointers. It’s helping me formulate a plan for this part of my layout!

Would it have been worked from the signal box, or from a lever on the end of the sleeper?

My layout has a private siding. I’ve recently been installing point rodding and it got me thinking. In my era (early 60s) this thread suggests gates would probably exist, but be left open and in disrepair. Someone also suggests the trap point would be part of the private railway. I was imagining it would make more sense for it to be part of the main railway, because then the signal box retains control over it directly... eg I was going to run a point rod to it. So my question is: does it sound reasonable to have a private siding, where the trap point would be before the gate (and hence still part of the main railway), and have that trap operated from the signal box?

My BLT has a small goods yard, which splits into three sidings via a three-way turnout (all within the yard). The turnout that gates entrance to the yard will be operated from the signal box, but the three-way turnout within the yard will be operated from a ground frame. Photo below. Track plan on last post of this thread. Question: are two levers enough (one for each "turnout" within the three-way)? I have read about facing point locks elsewhere on RMWeb, but I'm not sure if they apply to my situation. Thanks

Ok so now the bit where I need help. I'm trying to define two things. Firstly, I want to design the point rodding. My plan is to use Wills kits and similar to add cosmetic point rodding / signalling pulleys. The question is what path should these rods take? I've started with the signalling design from my other thread: And I've adjusted it (because the design isn't quite the same), and I've drawn in the rods (blue lines) and wires/pulleys (ping dashed line). I've also noted where things are attached to ground frames. Does this seem reasonable? NOTE: in the picture below I've stitched together two photos (fairly badly) and then drawn over the top ... the track is fairly smooth and free of kinks across the two photos (here it looks a little angular). The second thing I want to decide is how the goods yard will be laid out. In the picture above, the green tracks are not glued down yet, just balanced on top. Everything else is glued already and can't be changed without much faff (I have no appetite to change). For the goods yard, I've reused a three-way point, pretty much just because I already have it, so it saves me buying an additional turnout. I'm not completely opposed to doing so if people think it would be better. In my design, I was trying to think through how the sidings would be used. I was imagining maybe a goods shed on the top siding, the middle one would be for unloading, and perhaps the bottom one would be to collect empties ready to send back the other way. Does this sound in any way sane? Any other suggestions? @Nearholmer has a great suggestion that maybe one of the sidings could be partially lifted to add to the overall idea of dilapidation/disuse. I was thinking maybe the goods shed siding (and I think someone else suggested there could be a suggestion that the goods shed had at some point burned down -- perhaps just a light scorching on the ground). Regardless, the track would still have to have made sense at some point, and that's what I'm interested in here. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. I enjoy reading and learning from the experts on RMWeb!

Some months on now, and I need help with the goods yard, and point rodding design. But first, a quick update. In the last few months I've been slowly working on the land form, track laying, point motor wiring, and building the odd thing. Firstly what will hopefully end up as a dilapidated barn: Not in intended location yet, but with roof: Secondly I've started on the main bridge, which I need to help me figure out the landscape contours: And again with a bit more work and an undercoat:

Back in the early 90s I inherited track and stock from my elder siblings (when they left home; I was a few years behind them). They helped kickstart a layout which was, sort of, a BLT I guess. Things I remember: * making buildings out of Linka .. eg the shed visible in first photo * someone once gave me a cardboard model pub which took pride of place .. I remember it seemed to fantastically detailed to me at the time (I didn’t construct it) By a stroke of good fortune, my Dad recently dug out these photos of it! Now building a layout for first time in nearly 25 years, most of which was @Harlequin’s design ... as I have noticed seems to be de rigueur on this forum!

Talk of exchange sidings has brought me back to the private sidings design. I'm trying to add more detail to the design so that I can spend time creating the buildings. With the space I have available, this is achievable to fit around other commitments, but I do need to figure out what size they need to be. So far I've got this: I've been collating inspiration here. I think this terrace would not look out of place behind the station building, and I like the mix of stone and red brick used at Healey New Mill (plus a photo from its heyday). Keen to hear alternative suggestions for the private sidings ... I have been trying to think of ways to make them appear part of a larger private railway, but I don't think I've cracked it.

Agreed. I played with it for a while but in the end I went back to double slip and it was much easier to make it work nicely. The loop is fixed now. It’s a little shorter than it could be, but not enough to make me want to change it. I think at some point perfect becomes the enemy of good. I’m keen to keep pushing forward. Agreed. I mocked it up (loop crossing river) but it just didn’t look right. There wasn’t really enough track then that wasn’t in the loop! I’ve stuck it all down now. Hopefully it won’t look to short when it’s all done. We shall see. It’s all fixed now. Yes! This is an area I’m interested in exploring. I’m inspired by some of Chris Nevard’s dioramas and small layouts. Eg I’m thinking I could design a mini layout within an layout, perhaps with rails disappearing off scene. So far I’ve not fixed any of this line. I’ve sort of already got this set (see pics below). Maybe I need to rethink. I was half thinking the fiddle yard board could be another 1m board, perhaps with some scenery and the tunnel entrance, to stretch everything. Not sure though. It’s already pretty big for my house (and no real permanent home for it, yet). So my next steps are, I think 1. Sort out basic contours of the landscape and decide more concretely where river will be and mill sidings bridge. 2. Try to plan roughly where the buildings will sit within the landscape - perhaps doing full size mock ups of them. 3. Plan the mill private railway (I guess this will be in conjunction with 2)

It is probably too far - although I think probably only 8cm or so from where it should ideally be. There is no reason for this. The excuse is lack of attention when laying and glueing the track!

Hi everyone Some progress has been made! Most notably I switched to code 75 track, and started laying the track including point motors. This involves some of the mods that we talked about on this thread - eg trimming turnouts to bring the tracks closer together. I kicked off a thread on the signalling thread to work out how I should be signalling the layout. I now have a couple of layout challenges that were highlighted when discussing signalling, and stemming from actually arranging the track on the boards. The loop seems small (observation from signalling thread) The track work around the three way point is a bit tight, and there are some kinks that might need ironing out Here's some pics. It would be great to get thoughts on what I think are my options: Live with it (short loop, slight kinks) Swap three way for double slip again (avoids need for separate trap and therefore probably irons out some kinks .. but doesn't increase loop length) Move the first turnout to the other side of the bridge, extending the loop and making the main bridge a double track bridge (this potentially avoids kinks and makes the loop longer .. but does it adversely impact the balance of the layout and the mill sidings feature?) NOTE: the first board track is stuck down now, the second board is still moveable. Thanks

Agree -- I think I'm done with software. It was useful to get going, but now I'm at the making it feel right stage, and perhaps due to inexperience the only way I can really do that is by putting actual track down where it needs to be and then sliding coaches up and down and generally looking at it. I will jump back to the other thread this evening (in Layout section) to request more advice about the key challenge of the runaround loop!

It just sort of ended up like this! However it's not clear to me it buys that much space. With buffers in place, perhaps I could get an extra 7 or 8 cm by moving the turnout? It's glued down now so I think that ship has sailed. I must admit I lost track of how large a loop I want. I guess I need to work out how many coach trains would have been run on this BLT in the steam era. On the other thread everyone noted how in early 60s it would almost certainly be DMUs running the service, but obviously on infrastructure designed for steam (hence long platforms, loop etc.) If I can run around two passenger coaches today, say (I haven't measured -- probably should but I don't own any coaches), then I think the only way of upping this to three would be to move the loop to finish the other side of the river. I was keen on that plan this morning ... slightly going off it as the day wears on!

I think it ended up being shortened because of the baseboard joins tweaking where the points .. the join is actually through the end of the long crossing. I think I could solve both problems (short runaround loop, cramped and kinked track) by extending the run around loop right across the bridge and having the first turnout the other side of the river, with double track over the bridge. This might be easiest and best.

It is a bit of a kink. I’m not sure about it. I thought maybe it would smooth when I stick it down, but maybe it needs revisiting. Two options, I think: 1. stretch it all out, which pushes the throat (correct name!? I’m still learning terminology) out over the area I was planning on having the river. The downside is the river gets smaller, since I can’t really join the board over the river. Also it might not work given the angles of the three way. 2. go back to double slip. re: points - I’m getting carried away following this point motor installation guide. Clearly I haven’t installed the extra sleepers yet. We shall see if this was a good idea soon when I finish it off and wire it all up. http://www.gaugemaster.com/instructions/dcc_concepts/cobalt_manual.pdf