Thinking of scrapping my layout

[Gary H]

Well abit earlier I made up a rough (very rough) paper template taken from a Woodland Scenics single bore tunnel mouth and the prognosis was not good,

here is the problem-

Lack of room!

Even moving things around abit makes no difference-

 

However, if I rewind about 8 years when building this thing, I very nearly did this-

I was going to open up the whole area and have a tunnel portal at each end of the cross over.

I didn't because I thought it would look to contrived, that is, to many tracks all together in one scene.

Would it be "acceptable" for want of a better word, to return to this idea??

The turnout of the new connection would then be at the portal of the opposite end of the photo.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Gary H

[long island jack]

is there room for the point after the x over, don't think it would look out of place, plus you can see and access that x over just in case of derailments etc

[SwissRailPassion]

I agree about the crossover. Plenty of intesting working to be had in you latest plan. For the tunnel why not use a roof supported on pillars for the entrance? This would be a tight fit but take away the need for 'ears' on the tunnel template. I'll see if I can find a picture.

Here's a pic of the kind of thing which will give more clearance placed before a concealed tunnel. If you slewed the new connection right over towards the hidden tracks and slewed the yard lead the other way you could gain more space. It protects against rockfalls so the entrance could be double tracked for a short distance before the tracks separate in a sort of grand piano shape.

Edited January 14, 2016 by SwissRailPassion

[Gary H]

is there room for the point after the x over, don't think it would look out of place, plus you can see and access that x over just in case of derailments etc

I had a look at that possibility just now ,Ray. Unfortunately I end up with a very tight S curve between the turnout and the place at which it would join the existing line near to the bridge there.

I have struck upon another idea though, well 2 actually.

The first is to delete that hidden crossover altogether but I will then lose a loop to hold a train.

Do I really need that hidden cross over though?

The second option is maybe to consider a '3 way' like so-

It would certainly save some room.

[Gary H]

I agree about the crossover. Plenty of intesting working to be had in you latest plan. For the tunnel why not use a roof supported on pillars for the entrance? This would be a tight fit but take away the need for 'ears' on the tunnel template. I'll see if I can find a picture.

Indeed! I had a feeling it was something like that, thank you!

[Glorious NSE]

Ref the fit - i'm not sure the location needs that much blank concrete either side of the mouth! I think it'll fit if you trim one or other (or both) sides.

[Gary H]

Indeed, I think it will Martyn.

Those WS tunnel mouths are rather chunky as is and they cut down easily enough.

Today, I received more rail to build a tandem switch in copper clad, its the easiest way to go to incorporate the new connection and save some space for the tunnel mouth at the same time.

[ngaugecharlie]

Lovely layout Gary

[SwissRailPassion]

How's it going at the layout? Long time no hear.

[Gary H]

How's it going at the layout? Long time no hear.

 

Indeed. Sorry not to have answered sooner, I was thinking of a constructive retort on the subject.

But.......

In a word, badly!!

Think Ive spent another £100 on various bits and bobs over the last few months, built a superb copper clad 3 way that runs like silk.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/93867311@N07/31576498405/in/dateposted-public/

I part completed a Walthers bakery complex, laid a couple of industry spurs but this thing is still not doing it for me!

And now to top all that ive just gone and bought a Hornby BR blue 08 that was at a reduced bargain price from Hattons whilst my Suttons Locomotive Works Class 24 has also seen some action.

 

I am now seriously considering going back to my BR blue E.M days If I'm honest.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Gary H

[JAMO]

Britannic trains are nice too! My 10 years old son is a British trains enthusiast. I learn a lot by these weeks. I like Britannic trains too now!

 

Your 3 way turnout is very nice.

 

Where can we follow your new BR project?

Edited December 11, 2016 by JAMO

[F-UnitMad]

I am now seriously considering going back to my BR blue E.M days If I'm honest.

I can quite understand that. I once thought I wouldn't have much British O scale; American models were far cheaper, even imported.

Now the situation has changed; British O is booming & prices falling - US 2-rail O scale is stagnant at best, dying at worst, with the overwhelming demand for 3-rail killing decent 2-rail development, & the £-vs-$ exchange rate & stupidly sky-high shipping rates raising prices & discouraging importing.

I will stick with the US stuff I've got, but have/want more UK O than I anticipated!!

Edited December 14, 2016 by F-UnitMad

[Loconuts]

I can quite understand that. I once thought I wouldn't have much British O scale; American models were far cheaper, even imported.

Now the situation has changed; British O is booming & prices falling - US 2-rail O scale is stagnant at best, dying at worst, with the overwhelming demand for 3-rail killing decent 2-rail development, & the £-vs-$ exchange rate & stupidly sky-high shipping rates raising prices & discouraging importing.

I will stick with the US stuff I've got, but have/want more UK O than I anticipated!!

 

Be careful, British 'O' scale will not remain cheap with a container load costing double it did last year. Compared to US models what has been produced for the British market has been a drop in the ocean and the question is can it be sustained. One manufacturer is going to suffer due to the duplication of a 57xx a model that there has been a very good kit for. Not very clever.

 

Of course the recent announcement of forth coming 'O' scale models has got a frenzy of modelers building 'O' scale models of the ECML to run their full scale length trains of Teaks with one or other Pacific. One big problem, hands up who have a very large room to build such a layout, we are talking about 50 foot by 15 foot at the minimum. I modeled 'O' scale for 30 years and ended up with a space of 33 Foot by 9 Foot which was only big enough for GWR branch terminus with fiddle yard. If I wanted bigger I had to venture into the garden and that costs a lot of money and a lot maintenance.

 

Also at the moment only a few RTR models in 'O' scale have been announced but are not as yet available plus there is not enough stock available limiting what you can build. The only people who can build something at the moment are the diesel fanatics with offerings from Heljan and Dapol but that does not float everyone's boat.

 

If you dive into 'O' scale be warned it is still very much a builders scale bordering in the model engineering and if you are not prepared to build then have plenty of wonger at your disposal.

 

A couple of ready to run locos does not make an 'O' scale layout

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I wandered eastwards from California to Scotland, and latterly heading slightly westwards so I can still have my beloved EMDs...

 

 

If only BR had bought these off the shelf in 1976 instead of mucking about... I'm tempted to have several, including one in banger blue

 

<edit>

 

I hadn't realised before how the CIE livery bears a passing resemblance to the Great Northern livery...

Edited December 14, 2016 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[F-UnitMad]

Be careful, British 'O' scale will not remain cheap with a container load costing double it did last year. Compared to US models what has been produced for the British market has been a drop in the ocean and the question is can it be sustained. One manufacturer is going to suffer due to the duplication of a 57xx a model that there has been a very good kit for. Not very clever.

 

Of course the recent announcement of forth coming 'O' scale models has got a frenzy of modelers building 'O' scale models of the ECML to run their full scale length trains of Teaks with one or other Pacific. One big problem, hands up who have a very large room to build such a layout, we are talking about 50 foot by 15 foot at the minimum. I modeled 'O' scale for 30 years and ended up with a space of 33 Foot by 9 Foot which was only big enough for GWR branch terminus with fiddle yard. If I wanted bigger I had to venture into the garden and that costs a lot of money and a lot maintenance.

 

Also at the moment only a few RTR models in 'O' scale have been announced but are not as yet available plus there is not enough stock available limiting what you can build. The only people who can build something at the moment are the diesel fanatics with offerings from Heljan and Dapol but that does not float everyone's boat.

 

If you dive into 'O' scale be warned it is still very much a builders scale bordering in the model engineering and if you are not prepared to build then have plenty of wonger at your disposal.

 

A couple of ready to run locos does not make an 'O' scale layout

At risk of hijacking someone else's Thread, sorry but what a ray of sunshine this post is!!

Re the 57xx yes one manufacturer will suffer & I bet it's the one that took 5 years to deliver a Diesel Shunter. I already have an order with the 'other side'.

As for space, well to me a lack of space is merely a challenge to the imagination. I have 4 portable O layouts, none of which are longer than 12ft total, & one (US outline) is based on a 'might have been' at a real location in NW Chicago. If people are disappointed by anything less than scale-length ECML ops then that's their loss as far as I care.

Anyway as always Rule#1 applies so each to their own views

[Loconuts]

Was not trying poop on your parade, just trying to throw some facts into the going 'O' Scale British SG.

 

One thing I did not mention which many of my life long 'O' Scale friends have is retirement. Many have sold up and gone 4mm scale due to down sizing their houses and the pensions they receive. Read Gerry Beales article on his decision to go back to 4mm scale which appeared in the MRJ a couple or three years back. His reasons are exactly the same as those I mention.

 

You state you have ordered a 57xx, what is your next RTR GWR loco going to be. A Heljan 61xx? That is the next 'O' scale 7mm model coming out and that is a lot of loco for a tank loco.

 

It is basic common sense, work out the logistics before you leap. Time to stop hijacking someone else's topic.  

[F-UnitMad]

 

You state you have ordered a 57xx, what is your next RTR GWR loco going to be. A Heljan 61xx?

Nope. I don't intend to have any other steam locos.

 

It is basic common sense, work out the logistics before you leap. Time to stop hijacking someone else's topic.

 

Of course it is common sense. I wasn't actually encouraging the OP to change scales, just showing understanding, from my own experience, for why he felt like moving back from US to UK outline.

As for hijacking - indeed. No further comment about O scale or our perceptions of it.

[JAMO]

I wandered eastwards from California to Scotland, and latterly heading slightly westwards so I can still have my beloved EMDs...

 

071 03.jpg

 

If only BR had bought these off the shelf in 1976 instead of mucking about... I'm tempted to have several, including one in banger blue

 

<edit>

 

I hadn't realised before how the CIE livery bears a passing resemblance to the Great Northern livery...

 

This locomotive looks similar to those built to the Lima Huancayo line in Peru

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

This locomotive looks similar to those built to the Lima Huancayo line in Peru

 

well spotted sir!  in fact, the CIE locomotives are JT22CW and the Peruvian locos are JT26CW-2B... which means they are actually the same model as the BR class 59, but in a different body shell.

 

 

EMD locomotives are entrancing.  To me anyway, other people apparently only see a box on wheels

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Zomboid]

Why are they turning a loco which has a cab at either end?

[PaulRhB]

Why are they turning a loco which has a cab at either end?

Could be a defective cab or normal practice to even out flange wear on a tightly curved line.

[Supaned]

Or it could be to get a quieter/less draughty cab at the leading end.

 

Or in the case of that loco and line , to position the dynamic brakes (hump behind the nearest cab) or radiators (behind rearmost cab) in a certain set up to avoid overheating

[PaulRhB]

Or it could be to get a quieter/less draughty cab at the leading end.

 

 

You can tell he's a driver!

 

Agree on the dynamics overheating if there are tunnels on the line.

[Talltim]

But why are they turning it on a sewage works clarifying tank ?

[Gary H]

well spotted sir!  in fact, the CIE locomotives are JT22CW and the Peruvian locos are JT26CW-2B... which means they are actually the same model as the BR class 59, but in a different body shell.

 

FCCA_EMD_JT26CW-2B_San_Bartolomé.jpg

 

EMD locomotives are entrancing.  To me anyway, other people apparently only see a box on wheels

 

As its based on the Class 59 it'll be a fine machine. Infact ,anything with a 16-645E is a fine machine in my book.