Stoke Courtenay

[bgman]

1 hour ago, 81C said:

More smut Grahame.          

 

Oy !

I resemble that remark !!!  

[wilks]

On 29/06/2016 at 11:05, checkrail said:

IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST VISIT TO THIS LAYOUT THREAD, WELCOME, AND THANKS FOR LOOKING.  MY ADVICE WOULD BE TO FAST FORWARD TO THE LAST PAGE (p.24 at time of writing) AND THEN BROWSE BACKWARDS, AS THE LAYOUT HAS SEEN A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS SINCE THIS FIRST POST, ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO THE APPEARANCE OF THE TRAINS THEMSELVES.  John C. February 2018]  STOKE COURTENAY IS DUE TO FEATURE IN THE APRIL 2019 ISSUE OF BRM.

 

After 4 years I've just (almost) finished my layout, a loft-based affair in 4mm scale using 00-SF standards.  So time to take a breather and post a few pics.

 

. 

 

Stoke Courtenay represents a small GW junction station in the 1930s, the track layout being based on Brent, south Devon, with a few variations.  If there's any interest, once I return from holiday in a couple of weeks I'll post a bit more info and some more pics.

 

Unlike many retired returnee modellers I have no lifetime's collection of stock, just a rag bag of new and second-hand items, and unbuilt kits, gathered together over the last four years.  I've been exercising a self-denying ordinance on these pending completion of a layout to run them on, so at present they're all more or less as I bought them.  So I look forward to spending the next four years detailing, weathering, kit-building, repainting and general tarting up.

 

I can see I'll also have to investigate some better lighting for layout photography.  A lot to learn there, and indeed in all other areas, having been out of this game for 40+ years until 2012.

 

John C.

John

 

It is only this week that I picked up your posting. Your layout and modelling skills are excellent and you achieved all this in 4 years. Your standard of modelling is very consistent across the whole piece, making good decisions on when and where to make investment e.g. more complex track work, waiting to up grade rolling stock. Some of the station views are Pendonesque and I was surprised that it is a 00 layout albeit 00-SF.

 

The only down side is that you chose Great Western over Gresley, but your layout is inspirational; BRM will be pleased as I bought April's magazine on the basis of your layout.

 

Did the A1 Victor Wild (?) reach Devon in the LNER/GWR Castle exchange trials - a bit early but allows for the Gresley influence...

 

Happy modelling and keep up the high consistent standard.

[gwrrob]

Picked up my paper copy and as expected Andy has really gone to town on creating excellent photo's of your masterpiece John. A very nice, classy touch by your good self to mention me, along with ANTB and others who have inspired you to create SC.

 

In an answer to your question on where do I keep all my locomotives, it's getting to be a struggle with all the goodies currently being released..

[checkrail]

On ‎28‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 06:49, KNP said:

I notice the issues with the darkness has been sorted, out of curiosity what was it you needed to tweak in the end?

 

Glad you've noticed an improvement Kevin.  I'm still experimenting but currently shooting on f8, with exposure compensation set to plus one third,  ISO 200.  Other settings as per your recommendations.

 

Cheers,

John.

[Barry Ten]

Really enjoyed the article and the photos. That low angle on the King, with the trackwork so prominent, is particularly evocative and inspirational.

[colin penfold]

I too have just read the article. Very interesting and informative with great pics from his nibs as usual. Thanks

 

[checkrail]

10 hours ago, wilks said:

The only down side is that you chose Great Western over Gresley.

 

Did the A1 Victor Wild (?) reach Devon in the LNER/GWR Castle exchange trials - a bit early but allows for the Gresley influence...

 

Many thanks for kind words Wilks and your appreciation of what I've been trying to achieve.  I remember seeing some great photos of Victor Wild on the GWR at Pendon, so it has been done in model form. All that's about a decade and a half too early for my period, while I'm also about a decade too early for the 1948 loco exchanges.  

 

Takes me back to school days when a friend & I used to used to have on ongoing schoolyard LNER v. GWR debate, arguing about the loco exchanges and the relative merits of Stanier and Collet, and Barnsley hards v. Welsh steam coal.  Our arguments made today's Br***t rows look tame. And at 15 we didn't know what we were talking about.  No change there.

 

But I do have a few LNER wagons!

 

Cheers,

John.

 

 

[Tallpaul69]

17 hours ago, checkrail said:

 

Many thanks for kind words Wilks and your appreciation of what I've been trying to achieve.  I remember seeing some great photos of Victor Wild on the GWR at Pendon, so it has been done in model form. All that's about a decade and a half too early for my period, while I'm also about a decade too early for the 1948 loco exchanges.  

 

Takes me back to school days when a friend & I used to used to have on ongoing schoolyard LNER v. GWR debate, arguing about the loco exchanges and the relative merits of Stanier and Collet, and Barnsley hards v. Welsh steam coal.  Our arguments made today's Br***t rows look tame. And at 15 we didn't know what we were talking about.  No change there.

 

But I do have a few LNER wagons!

 

Cheers,

John.

 

 

Each to their own I say John,

My layout, when it gets to a final plan, will also be a GW theme, but around 1960. Mainly because that is how I first remember the railway.

 

Because I also want to run more modern eras, I decided to have a junction and a yard but no station, to avoid having to change platform furniture etc. On signals I am cheating by a location in the Thames Valley after the 1963 colour light signals came in. Parts of the yard will have removable covers to get round the decimation of small yards in more modern times!

 

So I have two plans at present, one with the branch inside the main tracks and one with it outside, all in a 12ftx8ft room.

 

The problem I have is storage loops and getting a reasonable number of trains on the layout to show a believable sequence of running.

 

Saw your plan in the BM article but what do your storage loops look like, and how many trains do they hold?

 

If I can get anywhere near your level of realism I will be very pleased! Keep up the good work.

 

Best regards

Paul  

[Miss Prism]

On 23/03/2019 at 16:51, checkrail said:

And looking at this final shot reminds me that I must upgrade this Bachmann AA19 Toad to vacuum braked status to match its fully fitted train.

 

Just catching up with this thread and all the marvellous new pics. No AA19s were fully-fitted or even through piped as far as I know. However, just because the other vehicles of a train are fitted does not I think mean that the brake van has to be fitted, and the train would thus be classed as 'partly vacuum fitted'  (a class 'C' train, up to 1936).

 

[checkrail]

On ‎01‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 16:51, Miss Prism said:

However, just because the other vehicles of a train are fitted does not I think mean that the brake van has to be fitted, and the train would thus be classed as 'partly vacuum fitted'  (a class 'C' train, up to 1936).

 

Thanks Miss P. That gets me neatly off the hook!  (Though I suppose I could just use a different brake van.)

 

Glad you liked the pics.

 

John.

[checkrail]

On ‎30‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 15:16, Tallpaul69 said:

The problem I have is storage loops and getting a reasonable number of trains on the layout to show a believable sequence of running.

 

Saw your plan in the BM article but what do your storage loops look like, and how many trains do they hold?

 

Thanks Paul for kind comments.  Storage loops are always a problem because many of us will never have enough space for what we'd consider 'enough'.

I have four up and four down loops, plus a 2 road branch fiddle yard with run-round facilities, so room for 9 trains, 10 max. with a bit of juggling.  See my post of 21 July 2016 on page 2 of this thread above for more details and photos.

 

Cheers,

John.

[The Fatadder]

My model of Brent sits in a room circa 9ft by 16ft, I have my station right at the back of the layout and the branch at the front in order to get as large radius as possible to the mainline curves.

 

The fiddleyard is similar to John’s in that I have gone for 4 roads in each direction, each of which can hold a 7 coach train + loco with two lines able to hold a 8ft train + two locos (with the idea that it can be used to hold a 2-6-2 tank + an M Set in half and a local freight in the other half.

 

I have yet to build the branch fiddleyard, but the plan is for 2 storage roads either side of a run around loop.  I am tempted to add one or two dead end sidings off this for additional storage of things like coaches which have been dropped off the London train which are not needed until later in the sequence.

 

The real trick to maximising the usefulness of your fiddleyard is hand built track, given that it both allows the track to exactly match the optimal formation, plus allows you to shorten the approach to points reducing the gap between them.

 

 

Now for a question of my own for you John,

 

How did you go about ballasting the layout, especially the yard?

[Tallpaul69]

1 hour ago, checkrail said:

 

Thanks Paul for kind comments.  Storage loops are always a problem because many of us will never have enough space for what we'd consider 'enough'.

I have four up and four down loops, plus a 2 road branch fiddle yard with run-round facilities, so room for 9 trains, 10 max. with a bit of juggling.  See my post of 21 July 2016 on page 2 of this thread above for more details and photos.

 

Cheers,

John.

Hi ohn, Rich and other watchers,

With only 12ftx8ft to play with, I have had to make a number of compromises. So running c1960-2, my maximum train length is tender loco plus 5 coaches and there is no station, just a junction and yard. This does have the benefit of making it easier to run later eras without having to change all the station furniture, and modelling the relief lines only of the Thames Valley with the compromise of post 1963 colour light signals, means I ust have to remove the signal box and cover the tracks around the goods shed with a raised "concrete" area.

Cant show you any pics, all this is still in the planning stage!

Getting to the fiddle yards:

I am planning on three tracks each way plus a middle crossover track. I hope to get two trains in most of these. For the branch yard(s), there are two versions:-

If I go for the branch on the inside of the mains (reliefs) there will a continuous branch circuit with the fiddle element being three loops plus a number of dead end sidings at one end.

If I go for the branch outside of the mains (reliefs) there will be a dead end yard with a loop and two sidings over the rear of the main fiddle yard, reached by a gradient branch and a second yard inside the Mains (Reliefs) with a loop and 3 dead end sidings plus a kick back for loco storage.

 

The above may be complicated to understand, so  if you look at one of my other threads "Design Ideas Welcome" where Phil (Harlequin) has been kindly helping with my poor drawing skills on the outside located branch, and my attached sketch "2019 Layout-1" of the inside branch version, you hopefully will get the ideas!!

 

Best regards

Paul 

[checkrail]

2 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

Now for a question of my own for you John,

 

How did you go about ballasting the layout, especially the yard?

 

Funnily enough Rich, I was just about to post in answer to the query on your own thread.

 

If you go back above to my post of 2 Sept 2016 on p.5 of this thread you'll find a description of my 'adventures' with ballasting, to which I recall you responded at the time.  On the specific subject of the yard, I used Carr's ash ballast, which is fine, grey and matt (unlike some 'ash' scatters I've seen which are more coarse, black and shiny!).  I've been pleased with the way it looks.

 

John.

[The Fatadder]

2 hours ago, checkrail said:

 

Funnily enough Rich, I was just about to post in answer to the query on your own thread.

 

If you go back above to my post of 2 Sept 2016 on p.5 of this thread you'll find a description of my 'adventures' with ballasting, to which I recall you responded at the time.  On the specific subject of the yard, I used Carr's ash ballast, which is fine, grey and matt (unlike some 'ash' scatters I've seen which are more coarse, black and shiny!).  I've been pleased with the way it looks.

 

John.

 

Thanks, you have a far better memory than I to remember that far back!

 

i had a feeling it was Carr’s ballast and it definitely reinforces my thoughts that is the product to go for.

 

my only concern with the fine ash is that my usual method with neat Klear dropped from a pipette will disturb the fine ballast

[DCB]

12 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Hi ohn, Rich and other watchers,

With only 12ftx8ft to play with, I have had to make a number of compromises. So running c1960-2, my maximum train length is tender loco plus 5 coaches and there is no station, just a junction and yard. This does have the benefit of making it easier to run later eras without having to change all the station furniture, and modelling the relief lines only of the Thames Valley with the compromise of post 1963 colour light signals, means I ust have to remove the signal box and cover the tracks around the goods shed with a raised "concrete" area.

Cant show you any pics, all this is still in the planning stage!

Getting to the fiddle yards:

I am planning on three tracks each way plus a middle crossover track. I hope to get two trains in most of these. For the branch yard(s), there are two versions:-

If I go for the branch on the inside of the mains (reliefs) there will a continuous branch circuit with the fiddle element being three loops plus a number of dead end sidings at one end.

If I go for the branch outside of the mains (reliefs) there will be a dead end yard with a loop and two sidings over the rear of the main fiddle yard, reached by a gradient branch and a second yard inside the Mains (Reliefs) with a loop and 3 dead end sidings plus a kick back for loco storage.

 

The above may be complicated to understand, so  if you look at one of my other threads "Design Ideas Welcome" where Phil (Harlequin) has been kindly helping with my poor drawing skills on the outside located branch, and my attached sketch "2019 Layout-1" of the inside branch version, you hopefully will get the ideas!!

 

Best regards

Paul 

 

 I don't think the pointwork at the MPD end is achievable. see my screenshot area outlined in red  Peco streamline curved points are 5ft radius on the outside road and 3 way points are 2ft radius. As drawn it looks like 3ft outside radius curved points and curved 3 way points which might be buildable in 00 but whether trains would get round is another matter.  Some of the curves are 12" radius.

I fear as a concept it is a non starter.  I had the same issues with a 12 X 9. Mine was a very weird looped 8 with a station one side, a yard and MPD the other and storage underneath, arranged to feed up and down lines from a fan of 4  long loops circa 9ft and a small fan of shorter loops with the yard and MPD visible.

Edited April 4, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[Tallpaul69]

14 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

 I don't think the pointwork at the MPD end is achievable. see my screenshot area outlined in red  Peco streamline curved points are 5ft radius on the outside road and 3 way points are 2ft radius. As drawn it looks like 3ft outside radius curved points and curved 3 way points which might be buildable in 00 but whether trains would get round is another matter.  Some of the curves are 12" radius.

I fear as a concept it is a non starter.  I had the same issues with a 12 X 9. Mine was a very weird looped 8 with a station one side, a yard and MPD the other and storage underneath, arranged to feed up and down lines from a fan of 4  long loops circa 9ft and a small fan of shorter loops with the yard and MPD visible.

David, as I said in my Posting, it is a SKETCH!!

I have always known that the right hand side needed reworking, particularly the curves/points around the bridges. It has in fact been drawn out by one of the organisations that may build it for me with decent curves although the pointwork has had to be simplified, so access from up to down for reversing trains is not as good as I would like. Unfortunately until we agree the layout the copyright of the plan is with the originators so I cannot show it.

 

How did you finally sort out your 12x9? 

Can you show us your original and final plans?

 

Best regards

Paul

 

[checkrail]

I rather tend to agree with David, that there's an awful lot of tightly curved track and pointwork in a small space.  You might want to try plotting it out using Templot (see 'Handbuilt track & Templot' area of this forum), or full size on lining paper on the floor using Peco point templates (which can of course be photocopied ad infinitum) and a few lengths of flexi-track.  Then you'll be more clearly able to see what's possible and what's not. Good luck with it in any case, and I look forward to seeing the ensuing layout feature on this forum.

 

3 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

How did you finally sort out your 12x9? 

Can you show us your original and final plans?

 

If so you might both want to continue any ongoing discussion on your own 'Design ideas welcome' thread, mentioned in your earlier post?

 

Regards,

John.

[checkrail]

Can't decide which big jobs to get my teeth into today, so messing about with the camera instead.

 

Here 6019 King Henry V approaches from the west as 5041 Tiverton Castle pulls away from the down platform at Stoke C.

 

And in the next one 8709 shunts the yard while 5557 approaches from the Earlsbridge branch.

 

Think I've managed a couple of different angles here, without including great chunks of the loft.

 

Must get some buckets and fire irons to hang from those nice hooks on the bunker of the pannier.

 

The signal box door is the only bit of 'woodwork' I didn't repaint.  I understand that by my period some doors and other bits were being repainted in 'maroon-brown' and I guessed that this was probably near enough.

 

Good gracious! Just noticed!  what's happened to the lamp on the prairie?  It's a good job Tony Wright's not watching - he'd roast me!

 

John C.

[Limpley Stoker]

Great pictures as always - the sky effect looks more realistic than photoshopped blue sky and wispy clouds. You’ve given us full- fat winter!

[checkrail]

And 8709 carries on shunting.  (Was that a film?)

 

John C.

[checkrail]

King & Castle again. 

 

In the next two I've tried  to get some length of train in with these, which means standing back from the layout a bit.  Hence the severe vertical cropping.

 

 

John C.

[KNP]

It’s not called severe vertical cropping...

You have taken a panoramic picture!!!!

They are nice shots as well..

Keep they coming and remember the power of cropping.

[westerner]

I agree with Kevin, I often vertically crop as you call it, it's the only way to get a decent train shot.

[checkrail]

A couple of leftovers of King & Castle from yesterday's photo session.

 

If memory serves the pic below is similar to a King photo I posted some years back, with the previous incarnation of the Hornby King.  That wasn't actually such a bad model except for the awful daylight between the underside of the footplate and the front bogie.  This later model is really nice.  Good smooth runner too.

 

John C.