Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello mate,

I would say you've got it just right, with regards to NOT putting points across baseboard joints!

I quite like your idea of red shading the no go area of the layout and it breaks it up into nicely manageable board sizes, looks like 3', 3'6" and 3'6" boards to me. I would say try and make the boards up into matched 'pairs' so they can be easily boxed together into a 'crate' for transportation.

With some judicious adjustments, you probably could go for two 5' boards but they are awfully unwieldy, I find.

 

As to the copperclad sleepers at board joints, I think that's purely for strength and alignment reasons. Copperclad is way stronger than plastic and can be glued or screwed to the board, rails soldered to it and everything should hold in place. Don't forget to 'gap' the copperclad, else electrical shorts will happen.

HTH,

John.

Agree re the copperclads - very good for strength! but don't forget to gap them on both sides if you are going to put pins or screws through them - here speaks the voice of experience acquired from such an omission....!!!!

 

Phil

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come across a photo of Banff with 76104 at the head of a train, so there is another R-T-R option for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the 'Soft' copy, it's cheaper, usually available before normal publication.

You can keep on your tablet/pc with piles of magazines building up.

 

So, I did my research, but there are probably e-zines and providers that I'm not aware of.  If anyone cares to fill in the gaps in my research, I will amend this post.

 

I think what I wanted was to be able to download PDFs, but clearly that isn't possible, probably due to avoid people copying without paying for the copies.  Next best for me would have been on-line access, as I have a Windows 7 laptop and don't much fancy trying to read a whole zine on my smartphone.  My wife has a tablet and an iMac, but I would prefer not to have to use them, if at all possible.  Sadly, on-line access seems to only come through pocketmags.com, and does come at a bit of a premium.

 

Zinio seems a great deal for the next couple of weeks, if you like Model Rail.

  • BRM
    • Itunes.apple.com
      • Single: £2.99
      • 6-month subscription: £16.99
      • Annual subscription: £32.99
    • Google app: android
      • Single: £4.04 ($7.49)
      • Monthly subscription: £2.96 ($5.48)
      • Annual subscription: £32.61 ($60.43)
    • Pocketmags.com: apple, android, windows 8.1/10, online
      • Single: £4.31 ($7.99)
      • Monthly subscription: £3.23 ($5.99)
      • 6-month subscription: £19.42 ($35.99)
      • Annual subscription: £36.69 ($67.99)
  • Hornby Magazine
    • Itunes.apple.com
      • Single: £2.69 ($4.99)
      • Monthly subscription: £2.05  ($3.79)
      • 6-month subscription: £13.49 ($24.99)
      • Annual subscription: £25.36 ($46.99)
    • Google app: android
      • Single: £3.23 ($5.99)
      • Monthly subscription: 2.41 ($4.47)
      • Annual subscription: £24.98 ($46.29)
    • Pocketmags.com: apple, android, windows 8.1/10, online
      • Single: £3.23 ($5.99)
      • Monthly subscription: £2.69 ($4.99)
      • 6-month subscription: £16.72 ($30.99)
      • Annual subscription: £31.29( $57.99)
  •  Model Rail
    • Greatmagazinesdigital.com: apple, andoid
      • 3 issues: £9.00
      • Annual subscription: £29.00
    • Itunes.apple.com
    • Google app: android
      • Single: £ 2.78 ($5.15)
      • Annual subscription: £25.86  ($47.92)
    • Pocketmags.com: apple, android, windows 8.1/10, online
      • Single: £3.23 ($5.99)
      • Annual subscription: £33.99 ($62.99)
    • Zinio.com: apple, andoid, windows 8/10 – less a 40% discount until April 16
      • Single: £2.99
      • Annual subscription: £29.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was making a model of Banff I would probably remove the point in front of the goods shed (loco's probably couldn't enter anyway), but insert a loco release crossover. I believe the prototype was gravity shunted but this is tricky in model form. One of the better models of Ashburton I have seen had an extra point added to make operation easier.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banff was a slightly unusual station in so much as that there was no passenger loop and stock was gravity shunted. There was a loop in the rather sparse goods yard, but it must have been of limited practical use, and its omission would be sensible. Here is  a link to the track layout - http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=373 -

 

High Level kits do a motorising kit for a goods wagon, which could help with the gravity problem, and a Black Beetle or similar in a coach would be fairly easy to fit. You could of course just build in a gradient!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was making a model of Banff I would probably remove the point in front of the goods shed (loco's probably couldn't enter anyway), but insert a loco release crossover. I believe the prototype was gravity shunted but this is tricky in model form. One of the better models of Ashburton I have seen had an extra point added to make operation easier.

 

Ed

 

 

Banff was a slightly unusual station in so much as that there was no passenger loop and stock was gravity shunted. There was a loop in the rather sparse goods yard, but it must have been of limited practical use, and its omission would be sensible. Here is  a link to the track layout - http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=373 -

 

High Level kits do a motorising kit for a goods wagon, which could help with the gravity problem, and a Black Beetle or similar in a coach would be fairly easy to fit. You could of course just build in a gradient!

 

Thanks to you both for your input.  It will come as little surprise that I have yet to spend anytime thinking about operations: I'm sure that the staff at Banff figured it out years ago :)

 

edcayton's post propelled me to read the signalbox forum page referenced through a broken link from the page given by Ben Alder (here: http://forum.signalbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1461), which explains that locos would never have entered the (wooden) goods shed because of fire risk, indicating that neither passenger or goods trains used run-arounds, and that both must have used gravity shunting.

 

Greenock and District Model Railway Club used a Beetle in their Inverboyndie layout (Hornby magazine, Aug 2015).  Putting the Beetle in a brake carriage and a High Level motorising kit in a brake wagon would add some authenticity to the result.  However, I'm pretty sure I will start with Hand-of-God gravity shunting, assisted with DCC-implemented automated decoupling.

 

I have had moments where I have contemplated a sloping layout as a scenic feature, but a) I don't have any info about what the slope should be, and b ) the slope might be hard to notice in the model and hence really not worth the effort involved.

 

Maybe I could just jack up one end of the layout :)

Edited by aardvark
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing on with my search for an initial RTR loco for the layout (and my non-existent collection), I have collated the following information.  It seems possible that there are other relevant locos and/or loco classes, or that there are other manufacturers that I am not aware of.  If you see any omissions, let me know and I will amend this post.

 

Locos allocated to Banff:

  • Manson D42 4-4-0 (1888) - 6872 (until 5/1939), 6810 (until 08/1951)
  • Johnson D41 4-4-0 (1893)  – 62230 (until 07/1954),
    • Worsley Class S kit (3mm)
  • Pickersgill D40 4-4-0  (1899) – 62272 (until 11/1954)
    • Worsley Class V kit (3mm)
    • PDK 54 kit
    • SE Finecast (Nucast) kit
  • McIntosh BR Standard Passenger/CR 439 class 0-4-4T (1900) – 55185 (until 07/1960), 55221 (until ????)
    • Alba Railways kit
    • DJH Model kit

 

Locos pictured at Banff:

  • Pickersgill D40 4-4-0  (1899) – 62262 (Keith until 10/1955), 62277 (Keith between 07/1951 and 06/1958)
    • Worsley Class V kit (3mm)
    • PDK 54 kit
    • SE Finecast (Nucast) kit
  • Johnson D41 4-4-0 (1893)  – 62251 (Keith until 06/1951)
    • Worsley Class S kit (3mm)
  • McIntosh BR Standard Passenger/CR 439 class 0-4-4T (1900) – 55185 (Keith between 11/1952 and 07/1961), 55221 (Keith between 05/1952 and 07/1961)
    • Alba Railways kit
    • DJH Model kit
  • Riddles BR Standard Class 4 Tank 2-6-4T (1951) – 80114 (Kittybrewster between 05/1957 and 07/1960, Keith between 07/1960 and 07/1961)
    • Bachmann Standard Class 4MT 2-6-4T 32-354 (late: 80002), 32-357 (late: 80079), 32-359A (early: 80092, pre-order),  32-360 (late: 80121), 32-360A (late: 80104, pre-order)
  • Riddles BR Standard Class 2 2-6-0 (1952) – 78053, 78054 (Keith between 12/1956 and 7/1961)
  • Riddles BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 (1951) – 76104 (Kittybrewster between 07/1957 and 07/1961)
    • Bachmann 32-952 (late: 76079), 32-953 (early: 76020), 32-954 (early: 76058)

 

Locos reported at Banff (haven't seen any pictures yet):

  • Thompson B1 4-6-0 (1942) – 61348 (Kittybrewster between 06/1949 and 02/1957)
    • Bachmann 31-712 (early: 61000, split chassis), 31-713 (late:61003, split chassis), 31-716 (late:61180)
    • Hornby R2998 (lner: 1040), R2999 (early: 61138), R3000 (late: 61243) , R3114 (late: 61270), R3338 (lner: 61310), R3451 (early: 61032, pre-order)
  • Fowler 2P 4-4-0 (1928) – unknown (reported in 1959)
    • Hornby R3028 (late:40663), R3315 (late:40602), R3316 (s&djr: 44), R3459 (early: 40626)

 

Additional loco classes that were allocated to Keith:

  • Worsdell G5 0-4-4T (1894) – pre-1948
  • Holden B12 4-6-0 (1911) – pre-1948
    • Hornby R150, R3430 (lner: pre-order), R3431 (early: pre-order), R3432 (late: pre-order)
    • PDK 41 kit
  • Gresley K2 2-6-0 (1913) – 07/1954
  • Reid C15 4-4-2T (1911) – 08/1954
  • McIntosh 3F 0-6-0 (1899) – 08/1954
  • Reid Glen 4-4-0 (1913) – 02/1956
  • Worsdell J72 0-6-0T (1898) – 02/1956
    • Bachmann 31-060 (lner: 8680, pre-order), 31-061 (early: 69001, pre-order), 31-062 (late: 69028, pre-order)
  • Holmes J36 0-6-0 (1888) – 02/1956
    • PDK 11 kit
  • Reid C16 4-4-2T (1915) – 10/1956
  • Reid N15 0-6-2T (1910) – 12/1957
  • Barclay 06 0-4-0 (1958)  – 10/1958 (diesel)
  • Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0 (1946)  – 05/1960
    • Bachmann 32-826A (early: 46460, pre-order), 32-828A (late: 46526), 32-830A (lms: 6418, pre-order)

 

It seems that there is a lot of choice available, or there will be, once all the models that are in development actually come to fruition.  Ideally, I think I would prefer an LNER or BR early that has been photo'ed at Banff, but I see that that is asking a lot.  I suspect my best options are the ones in bold.

 

Edited: removed Hornby R2714 R2716, R3016, R3016A as these are all BR Standard class 4 4-6-0, not 2-6-0.  Thanks pH.

Edited: adding Bachmann 32-953, 32-954.

Edited: added SE Finecast D40 kit.  Thanks uax6.

Edited: added CR 439 class 55221, Alba Railways kit, DJH Model kit. Added reported section. Thanks Orange Cat.

Edited: added allocation information from http://shedbashuk.blogspot.com.au

Edited by aardvark
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These:

  • Hornby R2714 (early: 75005), R2716 (late: 75070), R3016 (early: 75072)R3016A (early: 75071)

 are Standard class 4 4-6-0s, not 2-6-0s. No Standard class 4 4-6-0s were ever allocated to Scottish Region sheds.

 

This:

  • Bachmann 32-952 (late: 76079)

is a Standard class 4 2-6-0. There were many of these in Scotland.

 

I've not seen a picture of  B1 at Banff, though that's not to say none ever made it there. I think, if you want to be prototypical (as you seem to want to be), you would need a picture or a definite sighting to justify a B1.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These:

  • Hornby R2714 (early: 75005), R2716 (late: 75070), R3016 (early: 75072)R3016A (early: 75071)

 are Standard class 4 4-6-0s, not 2-6-0s. No Standard class 4 4-6-0s were ever allocated to Scottish Region sheds.

 

This:

  • Bachmann 32-952 (late: 76079)

is a Standard class 4 2-6-0. There were many of these in Scotland.

 

I've not seen a picture of  B1 at Banff, though that's not to say none ever made it there. I think, if you want to be prototypical (as you seem to want to be), you would need a picture or a definite sighting to justify a B1.   

 

Dang!  I was aware of the different Standard class 4's, but still managed to mess it up: thanks for the correction.  And I think I agree about the B1's.  Combine both of these, my options are considerably reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a crop from a pic showing a B! and 76xxx at what certainly looks like Banff.

 

post-2642-0-39225600-1459849499.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a B1, it looks like a Gresley mogul to me.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

61792 should be a Gresley K2,allocated to Keith from 07/07/1954.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is - shows how much I know about the LNER :blush_mini:  Still, interesting with two engines at the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Here is  a link to the track layout - http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=373 -

 

Can anyone help me understand this diagram?  It would probably be a great start to understand the symbols :scratchhead:

 

Is that a catch point outside the engine shed?  Are the two points in the goods sidings and the one outside the engine shed manually operated?  Why are there two numbers besides each point?

 

(sigh - so much to learn)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone help me understand this diagram? It would probably be a great start to understand the symbols :scratchhead:

 

Is that a catch point outside the engine shed? Are the two points in the goods sidings and the one outside the engine shed manually operated? Why are there two numbers besides each point?

 

(sigh - so much to learn)

An interesting project!

 

Yes that is a catch point outside the shed, a standard safety feature to prevent accidental movement fouling the "main" line. Note there is also a ground signal to control safe movement.

 

And yes you are correct, the solid drawn points without numbers next to them are hand operated, on Signal Box diagrams note that hand operated points are drawn solid, whereas those operated by levers in the S/B are shown with a slight gap indicating the "normal" routing of the point. The two numbers next to these points refer to 1) The point lever number and 2) The locking lever number. The locking lever being a requirement for any point that loaded passenger trains pass over to prevent any untoward movement of the switch rails.

 

Hope this helps.

Martyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nucast used to do a D40 (I think) and therefore will probably be available for the asking from Dave at SE Finecast...

 

Andy G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies that I have nothing to contribute to this topic but just to say it's very satisfying for me as an observer to read how like-minded enthusiasts help each other through shared knowledge and experience.  I look forward to dropping in again as Banff progresses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the internet at its best - I have developed an interest in the place as well, and in about three weeks research I have amassed enough in the way of photos and plans to build a model of it, mainly through altruism and some local area Facebook sites. What a difference from twenty or so years ago, when one was dependent possibly on published books and written communication with specialist societies, Then gathering information could take months or even years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has worked with the internet from the other side, it is a truly amazing place.  The information that is available to anyone that wishes to look is one of the greatest democratic forces at a time when our political processes seem to be becoming less and less democratic.  Look at what is happening with the Panama Papers right now.

 

But I think the greatest think about the internet is that it allows me to form solid friendships with people that I have never, and probably will never, actually meet.  This ability to construct our own personal links to people in other countries and other cultures, outside of sanctioned government or media channels, must make the world a fairer, more honest, more compassionate place in which it is worth living,

 

Getting off my soap-box, not only do I have the information that allows me to do an analysis of locomotive classes relevant to the location of my choosing, and to find manufacturers that provide models of those classes, I can research retail sellers around the globe to find one that has the best price (including p&h), the best post-sale services, and to track the delivery.  Readers might like to know that I have finally settled on a Bachmann 32-360 BR Standard Class 4 tank for that first-ever RTR loco.  Pictures will follow :)

Edited by aardvark
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised: here's a photo of the progress on my layout ...

 

post-27387-0-58692400-1461475738_thumb.jpg

 

Well, it is progress, of sorts.  And yes, I don't have any track to sit it on as yet, but that's another story.

 

Now that the choice of a RTR loco is sorted, it's time to move on to RTR coaches.  This is actually more difficult.

 

The lifecycle of locos is well documented on this internet thing, but not so with coaches.  Moreover, while the loco numbers are prominent and easily read in many photos of Banff, coach number are considerable less readable, and that's when you can see the coaches at all.

 

post-27387-0-45557700-1461477838.jpg

 

I read here at the Scottish Railway Preservation Society, that

 

Most Scottish branch line and suburban services used non-corridor compartment stock. With no corridors or lavatories, such carriages carried more passengers and so were cheaper to build and operate.

 

Those clever, economic Scots.

 

So I did a bit of a search for non-corridor coaches and came up with the foilowing list of possibilities for Banff in the 1950's, all of which are Hornby product.  I skipped the Dapol Staniers, 1st class-only coaches, and anything in teak, crimson & cream, LMS crimson or with a lavatory, since I don't think any of those made it to Banff.

  • R4577B Thompson non-corridor brake third E87231E in BR crimson
  • R4650 Gresley suburban brake third E86099E in BR maroon
  • R4653 Thompson suburban brake third E87092E in BR maroon
  • R4658 57' non-corridor composite M16623M in BR crimson
  • R4659 57' non-corridor third class M11703M in BR crimson
  • R4678 57' non-corridor brake third M20769M in BR crimson
  • R4678A 57' non-corridor brake third M20770M in BR crimson
  • R4689 57' non-corridor composite M16574M in BR crimson (pre-order)
  • R4690 57' non-corridor third class M16574M in BR crimson (pre-order)
  • R4691 57' non-corridor brake third M20787M in BR crimson (pre-order)
  • R4691A 57' non-corridor brake third M20787M in BR crimson (pre-order)

Feel free to make correction and additions.

 

The ones in bold are probably my preferred options, but then again, what would I know? :scratchhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you'll have to re-number them to get rid of the M's and E's at least.... (they will need to be Sc xxxxx M (or E), the Sc meaning allocated to Scotland, the M or E at the end showing wether they are ex LMS or ex LNER vehicles.)

 

That photo shows a Thompson non corridor brake third (I think!) as the first vehicle, but the second one I would guess is either a pre-grouping one or possibly a LMS one... Looking at the net I think it's a LMS composite non-corridor (1st class in the middle, 3 compartments), and I think therefore that your preferred options are actually correct!

 

Andy G

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, knock me down with a feather ... who would have thought I'd get something right :)

 

Actually, it's not that surprising as I had a pretty good hint from Ben Alder, but it is good to understand what I am talking about (sometimes).

 

Thanks Andy: I wouldn't have thought about the need to renumber coaches, but now that I understand a bit about the renumbering, it does make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, that's RTR loco and coaches all sorted.  Next on the list is RTR track.
 
Originally, when I first started thinking about a layout, I just figured I would use Hornby track, since that was what I had when I was a kid.  Some reading soon showed that nearly nobody used Hornby track, so I switched to Peco SetTrack.  More reading identified Peco Code 100 as more realistic, then Code 75, which is what appears in post #1 of this thread.

As a beginner, I really want to stick with RTR track rather than kit- or scratch-build custom track.  I am sure I will have more than enough challenges as it is, so RTR track is one corner that I am happy to cut,  I might well tackle hand-built track on the next layout (presuming I make it through this one).
 
Recently, one RMWebber asked whether I was going to wait for bullhead track, and this has propelled me to investigate the whole bullhead vs flatbottom rail question: a question that I was previously blissfully unaware needed to be asked, much less answered.  My head still hurts.
 
I am certainly convinced that BH is the way to go if I wish to be even vaguely accurate in my intended modeling of Banff in the 1950's, while the track offered by the major manufacturer's is all FB, and therefore technically wrong for me,  I'm also aware that there is a major thread here discussing the pros and cons surrounding the Peco announcement of BH track, but I have not gone there in an attempt to preserve what little of my sanity remains from the religious arguments that lurk there.
 
As with the loco and coaches, the following is meant to be a pragmatic analysis of what is available and from where, what it costs, and whether it is worth it.  Of course, that last bit is a purely subjective judgement, and there will be readers that will not agree with my summations.  Also, it is highly likely that I have missed something, or misunderstood something,  Please correct me on all counts.
 
Option #1: the existing Peco FB code 75.  The pros are that its readily available, even in Australia, cheap and well-known by all including CAD software.  The big con is everything about it is wrong: profile of the rail, sleeper width, length and spacing.  From what I've seen in comparison photos, the rail profile is not that big a thing, but the other problems remain,
 
Option #2: Peco FB code 75 with adjusted sleeper spacing using a jig from PH Design.  I had previously thought I might take a swing at adjust the Code 75 sleeper spacing.  It sounds a bit tedious, but otherwise feasible with a jig.  However, the resulting track would still have sleepers that are too thin and too short.
 
Option #3 is the announced Peco BH code 75.  Sadly, Peco won't be doing points anytime soon, and I'm not sure I buy Peco's assurance that the flexitrack will be available in late 2016.  Hornby and Bachmann never seem to be able to meet their promised availability dates, so I have trouble believing Peco, but that's just me.  I am really unsure how obvious the difference between Peco BH flexitrack and FB points would be once ballasted, but I have to guess that the sleeper spacing will still be fairly obvious.
 
Option #4 is Peco BH code 75 flexitrack with DCC Concepts points.  As I read the DCC announcement, they will offer B6 points, which are roughly equivalent to Peco long points.  As with the Peco BH flexitrack, this is promised real soon now, or perhaps sometime this year.  DCC currently sell pre-cut, etched and pre-tinned sleepers for A5, B6, B7, B8 or B9, plus crossings and slips, so perhaps kits for all these might not be too far behind.
 
Option #5 is C&L Finescale.  C&L provide both BH flexitrack and RTR points, but the points are seriously expensive, and probably outside my budget (whatever that is).
 

Option #6 is C&L BH flexitrack with Peco FB points.  Similar to option #3, but without the indeterminate wait.

Option #7 is SMP Scaleway track with Marcway points.  While Marcway points are dearer than Peco points, they are significantly cheaper than C&L RTR points, and are probably affordable for the likes of me.  This seems to be a no-brainer option for any skeptic of Peco and DCC delivery schedules.  The con is that Marcway points are not included in the AnyRail libraries, so it would seem that I cannot plan my layout with them.  Paper templates are available for purchase, although I don't understand why the templates aren't available for download, but I suppose it's their business and they are free to do as they wish.  I have read that Marcway 60" points are roughly equivalent to Peco long points, but have no idea about the other sizes.

 

No idea what to do as none of the options are particular brilliant.

 

Perhaps I should just go with Peco FB Code 75 after all.  There would be few in Australia that will be able to tell the difference anyway.

 

(Edited: added details of DCC Concepts pre-cut timbers)

Edited by aardvark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go SMP bullhead and then buy a marcway point kit and gauges (get three!). You will find that making the kit is very easy, so easy infact that I bought 2 kits and then built one as an interlaced sleeper point, to B6 standard.

 

Ok I can see that your eyes have just glazed over! I downloaded templot, and drew myself a cross-over in b6 length and printed it out. I found that the two kits supplied enough pcb strip and rail to build one interlaced sleeper point (the templot print out was just normal sleepered ones, I used photos to work out where the extra sleepers went) and then followed the marcway instructions, but built in ontop of the print outs. It took my about four evenings to build, and that's with me having never built track ever before...

You'll enjoy it! (and the fact the kits were less than a tenner each...)

 

Mind you SMP and peco long radius points is a good compromise.....

 

Andy G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.