Tortuga Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 While the glue sets on the retaining wall sub-structure, its back to buffer stops and my first attempt to convert the PECO offering into an approximation of the LNWR type: From the front… …and from the back. Thoughts? 11 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NHY 581 Posted January 23 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 23 Tidy. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 All this: …to hold this in place while the glue sets: Thats the first part of the retaining wall substructure in position. Happy with that and the buffer stop, so I’ll treat myself to some ‘Miss E’s Jack O’Lantern Pumpkin Ale’ since it needs drinking up! 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted January 24 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 24 14 hours ago, Tortuga said: While the glue sets on the retaining wall sub-structure, its back to buffer stops and my first attempt to convert the PECO offering into an approximation of the LNWR type: From the front… …and from the back. Thoughts? Opportunity missed? http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/lanarkshiremodelsandsupplieswebsite_230.htm Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 18 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said: Opportunity missed? http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/lanarkshiremodelsandsupplieswebsite_230.htm Mike. Ah, no. One aim of Whaley Shunt is to try and use up stuff I’ve got sitting around rather than consigning it to the tip. I already had four PECO stops, so I thought I’d try knocking them into a representation of the LNWR type. I do already have an example of Dave’s excellent kit on Alsop and would be the alternative option if the PECO/plasticard attempt didn’t work. Did I succeed? 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted January 24 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 24 Well, without wishing to sound too critical, you've made it look more like an LNWR stop, but I get your modus operandi. Mike. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said: …you've made it look more like an LNWR stop… That’ll do me! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted February 21 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21 You may have seen it, but a picture has appeared on Facebook of 46152 in Shallcross Yard. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 On 23/01/2024 at 17:50, Tortuga said: While the glue sets on the retaining wall sub-structure, its back to buffer stops and my first attempt to convert the PECO offering into an approximation of the LNWR type: From the front… …and from the back. Thoughts? Looks good. Nice to see someone who has fitted a PECO bufferstop onto the track correctly, with the ends flush to the top of the rails. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted February 21 Author Share Posted February 21 7 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said: You may have seen it, but a picture has appeared on Facebook of 46152 in Shallcross Yard. Mike. Cheers Mike! I did spot that - I tried to comment on it, but not sure if it posted as I’m not a member of the group it appeared in… If it’s the same post I’m thinking of, I was very interested in the present day shot of the same location - first time I’ve seen the detail of the retaining wall without a loco or the shunters bothy getting in the way! That photo will be extremely useful for building Chapel Road overbridge and the retaining wall. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishplate Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 On 24/01/2024 at 08:40, Tortuga said: Did I succeed? yes 👍 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 Not much progress on this since January, mainly due to free time being concentrated on the support framework for Alsop, but also because I’m not 100% happy with the direction this seems to be taking. It’s supposed to be an Inglenook layout first and foremost, based on Shallcross Yard yes, but not a slavish copy. I’ve stated to feel that the extension seems to be turning it into more of a “proper layout” instead. So I’m wondering: what if I moved the goods shed onto the inglenook board, effectively bringing the point for the goods shed siding much closer to the entrance to the yard? The goods shed itself would sit next to the current position of the LH point (red lines) and that point would be moved to come off the RH line of the 3-way point instead (black lines): To my mind the board would then include all the structures that set the location as Shallcross Yard - the goods shed, the bridge, the shunters bothy, the row of houses and the cutting - with the higher ground and houses at the LH end of the layout (closest the camera) being balanced by the goods shed at the right hand end (furthest from the camera). What do people think? Nothing’s going to happen soon (I’m still working on Alsop’s support frame), but I’d rather make any drastic alterations now rather than progress it further and regret it! 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JustinDean Posted March 2 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2 I think if you’re going to be happy with a ‘flavour of’ layout, want something small that’s easy to get finished, set up and running then this is the way to go. Jay 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishplate Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 18 hours ago, Tortuga said: I’d rather make any drastic alterations now rather than progress it further and regret it! Seems to me (from what you have written) that you are already 90% of the way to making a decision? I agree with @JustinDean. There will be a little bit of work on the alignment of the RH siding to accommodate the point in its new position there, but you'll release enough plain line to infill on the LH siding. As you've had two replies, one like from @franciswilliamwebb, and an agree from @Enterprisingwestern . Let's say we've each contributed 1% towards your final decision. Does that help get you over the line ?🤔 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted March 2 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2 You could always call the modified layout "Shantcross Yard"! Mike. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted March 4 Author Share Posted March 4 (edited) Thanks for the replies folks! I’ve been playing on Templot and this is what I’ve come up with: Oddly enough, this very closely resembles my first design, the only difference being that bottom siding curved toward the RH edge rather than the bottom corner. Still undecided… Edited March 4 by Tortuga Extra words 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NHY 581 Posted March 5 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 5 Nick.............. What if....... One lengthens the sidings by moving the points back along the headshunt thing and add a short, detachablesque off piste shunty stick. I'm troubled by the length of the sidings, especially when you take into account that the intial bit, closest to the points, will be compromised due to the close proximity of the adjacent tracks at this point. Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 Hi Rob, Your idea is similar to an alternative I’ve considered: modelling the whole yard on two (slightly shorter) fully scenic boards - more of a shunting layout than a “true” inglenook. After all, to my mind, the train doesn’t have to leave the scene as long as the track does. I’ve just realised I should’ve probably clarified some things on my post last night, but it had been a long day and I was tired! In “inglenook mode” only the tracks off the 3-way point are used: I’ll probably secure a brake van or a couple of wagons on the siding off the LH point to render it unusable when playing shunting puzzles. With regard to siding lengths: The sidings off the top (goods shed) and middle exits of the 3-way point should each hold three wagons clear of the pinch points. The siding off the bottom exit should hold five wagons clear of the pinch points. (wagons are “standard” length: 17’ 6” underframes with 2’ buffers - 86mm long) I’ll print it out and double check clearances with actual stock later today - see if theory survives contact with reality! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted March 6 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 6 23 hours ago, NHY 581 said: Nick.............. What if....... One lengthens the sidings by moving the points back along the headshunt thing and add a short, detachablesque off piste shunty stick. I'm troubled by the length of the sidings, especially when you take into account that the intial bit, closest to the points, will be compromised due to the close proximity of the adjacent tracks at this point. Rob I'm in agreement re the fouling points, definitely needs a longer headshunt, especially if tender engines are considered. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortuga Posted March 7 Author Share Posted March 7 Hi Mike, The headshunt on the plan is the same length as the headshunt on the current layout: an 8F plus three BR Diag 1/208 vans fit with sufficient clearance twixt the wheels of the rear van and the LH blades of the 3-way point. (I haven’t yet had chance to print the track plan, by the way) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted March 7 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 7 2 hours ago, Tortuga said: Hi Mike, The headshunt on the plan is the same length as the headshunt on the current layout: an 8F plus three BR Diag 1/208 vans fit with sufficient clearance twixt the wheels of the rear van and the LH blades of the 3-way point. (I haven’t yet had chance to print the track plan, by the way) Apologies, what I actually meant to say was that moving the headshunt back would give more siding space, imagine it to be like putting an extra board on the right hand side. Mike. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now