NWJ

Hi Drew, 20'x10' is just a dream for many layout builders, in OO it offers the potential for less compression of space, the opportunity to run closer to scale length trains and a chance to develop a greater scenic setting. However, in N gauge it can really offer a great canvas for creating a mainline setting with scale length trains. I have a layout based on Totnes in N gauge(see attached plan) which is 'only' 13' 6" x 8' 3". I enjoy the space that I have on this design and the fact that the railway can be part of the landscape. Obviously, my preference is for a layout following prototype practice and I prefer not to se up too much space with track work. One of my concerns, which has already been mentioned, is the fact that you are considering 3' wide boards. My layout is on boards that are 2' 6" wide and I do find it difficult to reach over to the far side. I am over 6' tall and have a long reach but I do need to rest one arm on the baseboards to successfully reach across to the far side, for example in the station area. I did design the boards to take this sort of weight and this may need to be a consideration for you. As to avoiding a glorified train set look, it's all about choosing an era and a place and then trying to imitate what is in real life whether it be the undulations of the physical landscape or the way in which the track plan is designed. There are plenty of people here who will be able to offer help. RM Web is a very broad church so some may advocate a more prototypical practice whilst some will suggest ideas that are less prototypical and more 'train-set'. The bottom line is that it will be your layout and it should be fun for you. As you start to think about this layout, it is always worth starting with a list of what you really want from your railway with relation to location and era. Good luck with the project, Neil

There is also Upchurch, Lower Halstow and Otterham Quay to the East of Rainham. Otterham Quay is nothing more than a cottages, a pub (I think it's still there) and a wharf on the River Medway. Upchurch and Lower Halstow are a couple of villages on the coast but, in another world, each could have potentially had a station on the mainline (albeit some way from Lower Halstow so it would probably have been Lower Halstow Road...). Also, to the South of Watling Street and Upchurch is the small hamlet of Meresborough. Neil

Don't forget that Kent had its own coalfields until the late 1980s. There were several collieries in East Kent, most served by the East Kent Light Railway(engineered by Colonel Stephens); the last colliery, Betteshanger, finally closed in 1989. Watching this discussion with interest - do like a bit of SR in N gauge. Neil

Most likely to be Kent. Thomas Clark, the composer of the tune 'Cranbrook' was a cobbler from Canterbury. Apologies to all Yorkshire folk who did not realise that the tune to their National Anthem, 'Ilkley Moor Bat t'At' was composedby a non-Yorkshireman. Neil

Just to give an idea of what might work in a 3m x 1m space, thise link takes you to a model constructed on a slightly larger area, althouh the 1.2m x 3.05m baseboard does not include a loop at one end, this is added as an extension when the layout is being operated. It does, however incorporate many of the features that you have identified and might provide an idea of how to progress with the pencil and paper whilst on holiday... http://www.009.cd2.com/satanicmill/front page.htm Neil

The layout you are thining of is 'Springdale' by Roy Scholfield. The schmatic track plan is below, but it was apparently constructed on a 6' x 3'9" baseboard.

Canterbury. Canterbury East is to the South of the city centre and Canterbury West is to the North.

Hi Dave, I am guessing that there are still ordering glitches on the website. I have tried to order 2 Kings only to be told that there is no available payment methods for my state - I am a UK resident! Can you let us know when it is all up and running as I guess that there are others who have found this problem. Incidentally, I tried to order using Google Chrome. Would a different browser succeed? Thanks Neil

Another thing to consider is how you feel about train lengths. I model in N and do so because I have found that I cannot compromise with a large express loco pulling a 4-coach express. 14 foot is a good length in either scale, but in OO it would probably realistically allow 6 carriages + loco into the Minehead based station, which would allow for pointwork into the station, run-round and a little bit of space to run the train in. In N, an equivalent length train would be 12 carriages + loco and would allow space again for the train to run beyond the ends of the platforms. In the end, it is really your call - both scales work well, there is far more available in OO but N can give more space for the trains to run in. Neil

Hi Dave I have tried sending you a PM and also emails, all to no avail. I have not yet received confirmation of the orders I have placed for the proposed King - the orders were placed some time ago. How can I find out if these are in your system? Neil

There are copies of the Bristol District WTT for September 1958 - June 1959, June 1959 - September 1959 and September 1960 - June 1961 available on Michael Clemens site, http://www.michaelclemensrailways.co.uk/?atk=572 You can find the sectional appendices in these online copies for these years. Neil

That is a problem that was common to many river bridges. I know from the plans that in this case it was alleviated on the original by sinking the cast iron cylinders over 70' through to the bedrock. I will not be doing this on the model though!

Yes, I suppose that the flow is generally fairly low, and although it is tidal, the velocities in either direction will be fairly constant during the rise and fall. Thank you too for the info about cutwaters - I will remember that for another bridge on another project.

Thank you for all of the replies so far, they have been most helpful. Andy G, I had not taken into account that the trusses may be mounted on bearings simply because I could not see them in the original drawings: http://www.northcornwallrailway.co.uk/pics/Viaduct-Drawing-1.jpg http://www.northcornwallrailway.co.uk/pics/Viaduct-Drawing-2.jpg However, you are absolutely right in this and I will need to mount the end of each truss centrally on the support. John, you're right in the fact that I have resorted to off-the-shelf products so have effectively created more problems by not making my own. However, I have been attacking the landscape a little today to widen the available valley and am now happier with the overall appearance. 34theletterbetweenBandD, as I have already said, the correct approach would be for me to mount centrally and indeed it is more visually pleasing - the reference to ecclesiastical architecture is a particularly relevant point too. Gordon A, in an ideal world, I would also prefer the radius to be less tight. However it is not so noticeable from the normal viewing position. I am sure that you will agree that many model railways are forms of compromise and I will be compromising on this structure in relation to the original, however what I am seeking is something that would look as if it would work as a prototype. Dave John, that photo was the sort of evidence that I was looking for to justify the positioning of the support columns, thank you.

Hopefully somebody can answer this query, and apologies for the long preamble... I am working on a project loosely based on Padstow and one of the features I want to include is the famous Petherick Creek bridge just before the station:- This is built on a slight curve, so I am happy that I can do the same although mine is on a much sharper curve: Having constructed the basic bridge using the PECO sides, I am now in a slight dilemma regarding the two central pairs of support cylinders. On the prototype, these are arranged to be parallel with the flow of the river which is logical, and the end of each truss girder is central on a concrete pad on each of the cylindrical support. In my situation, this would require me to engineer a sharp meander to direct the flow of the river parallel to these. These photos indicate the sort of angle that he supports would have to be at if I did this. Fiddling around this evening, I tweaked the supports to reduce the angle under the bridge and straighten the river a little more. This is more aesthetically pleasing but would mean that the trusses no longer meet at the centre of the concrete pad but rather to one side. The right hand support shows this more clearly than the left in the pictures below. Would this be possible in a prototype situation? The trusses are a scale 22m (72') long and I am guessing that the downwards force exerted by a pair of trusses on this support would balance sufficiently to avoid any potential disaster in a real life situation but I am hoping that somebody with a bit more knowledge may be able to confirm this. Many Thanks