Jump to content

t-b-g

RMweb Premium
  • Posts

    5,847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by t-b-g

  1. I think that the carriage siding in that position is rather too difficult to access. If you lost the carriage siding (which is too short to be much use anyway) and use it as a headshunt, that would allow a shunter to sort the horseboxes and tail loads out without blocking the main line.
  2. At that price you could use it as a drawing/template for cladding in plasticard.
  3. Many thanks. Although it has a different drawing number, it looks very like the one my friend has.
  4. I have just noticed that the Drayton kit had already been mentioned, so apologies for duplicating. I have always found that things like signalboxes and signals are very specific to a particular railway company. I looked at the Leamington Box and it just shouts Great Western at me. So my preference would be to go the extra mile to get one that is correct for your period and company rather than get a near enough one and alter some details. But that is just me! Some folk are happy with "near enough". Making windows is not that difficult. I usually draw the windows out, tape clear plastic to the drawing, scribe a groove with an OLFA cutter, paint with suitable colour acrylics and scrape the excess off with a fingernail. I then add an outer frame from Evergreen strip or similar. This is my LD&ECR one for Sheffield Attercliffe. You should check the brick bonding before buying some in. English Bond was by far the most common for railway buildings in that sort of period.
  5. I like the extra crossover. The only thing that I might consider changing is to curve the carriage dock road gently and swing it away from Pl 3 towards the corner of the board. That would allow a platform that goes around both sides of the dock and the end. Horse boxes often had a partition down the centre and being able to unload from both sides was useful. It also gives you an end loading facility for carriage trucks and would allow the siding to be longer. It also breaks up the tracks all running pretty much straight along the board, so adds something visually. You could then add more length to the carriage siding too. The area marked "cobbled area" could make a nice loading dock for the nearby market, so fish and meat vans as well as general good vehicles could be sent there for unloading but shunting it is a bit awkward. I can't see an easy way of dealing with a brake van!
  6. Could two of these be "cut and shut" into a bigger box? I don't know enough about LBSCR signal boxes to know if they had a longer version of this design, or if it is the right design or period. It has bags of character. https://railmodel.co.uk/collections/00-gauge-4mm/products/drayton-signal-box-4mm
  7. Sometimes I pass them on to others, sometimes I strip them down and re-use as much as possible and sometimes they get dumped in the garage or shed for years! There was even one where I kept one baseboard out of three but stripped it back to just track, built a new station throat on a new board and totally rebuilt the scenery. I still don't know which is best!
  8. I will be seeing the friend who has the drawing at the weekend, so I will ask him where he found it.
  9. I have been speaking with a good friend who has previously investigated the lining on the LNER green and cream tourist stock and he had found the Doncaster painting spec. , which shows a single black line, half an inch wide, between the green and the cream. So it is not surprising that it isn't easy to spot in photos. If anybody is interested, it is Doncaster Drawing Office No 922N, dated May 1932 and later revised. It seems reasonable to think that the lining on the Sentinel might be similar. I make that about 0.15mm wide in 4mm scale, which won't be easy to do to proper scale thickness.
  10. I don't have too much of a concern about trains going "off scene" to shunt as long as the scenic treatment is arranged in such a way that the view is blocked. Out of preference, it looks better to me if at least some of what is being shunted remains visible and I have never found layouts where the shunting goes into the fiddle yard from one track and re-appears on another very convincing either. The fairly common "half station" arrangement where the run round is completed in the fiddle yard somehow just doesn't work for me, although I know it is popular with others. I did design a layout once with a crossover between two tracks on a traverser fiddle yard, so that once in the station, the train could be shunted conventionally, without using the traverser again. It never went any further than a sketch. This is the sort of area where I find that modelling a fictitious location scores over modelling a real one. You can invent an overbridge or a big building to disguise the fact that the shunt is going into a fiddle yard. Very few real places have the necessary view blockers in the right places. A short length of running line before the trains enter the fiddle yard can look good but although it adds something visually, it doesn't really increase the operational potential and there are some of us who would rather add a bit of extra length to sidings and trains, or sneak in a loco shed or an extra operational feature if we had an extra 4ft to play with!
  11. I am not convinced 100% one way or the other. If it is a shadow, why does it continue across the vertical beading? Is there something I am unaware of protruding there to create a shadow? It may be that the line, if indeed there is one, didn't go on the inset doors. The LNER Tourist Stock had lining in that position, between the green and the cream. So why should the railcars, painted in essentially the same livery, be any different? It seems a bit odd adding all that lining and then not putting one between the two major colours where you might expect there to be some. I am sure somebody will have a clear photo, which proves it one way or the other.
  12. I am sure you are right but it isn't an arrangement that I would choose to build.
  13. That is a good way of going about things. You have a prototypical track plan but none of the restrictions on locos, stock or scenic treatment that modelling a real place impose on you.
  14. Perhaps I was a bit OTT with the width but I would want to include some of the roads and buildings that make Nottingham Victoria the place that it was. If you are omitting the overall roof and the buildings with the famous clock tower, you have removed 90% of the character of the place anyway. If you think it is practical to have all those tracks, that far apart, curving round to a usable fiddle yard then I wish you good luck but it isn't for me! You would end up with a layout that is 75% fiddle yard (two ends and one side) and 25% scenic (one side). I have seen layouts like that and I always think that they are a poor use of space. I have been lucky enough to be involved with all sorts of layouts over the years, from tiny foldable branch lines to the EM model of Retford. My experience has taught me that I wouldn't want a layout where anything is ideally 2ft (and 2ft 6ins as a maximum) from where an operator/builder can stand. So I would have a maximum 4ft wide board if I had access to both sides but only 2ft if the board is set up against a wall. The space we had for Nottingham was against a wall so it was a non starter and the space was actually filled by two smaller stations on 2ft wide boards, which are great fun to operate.
  15. Indeed. It was some time ago, pre Covid, when we visited. Recent events have certainly made such a view seem rather insensitive. I just hope that the missing locos can be recovered.
  16. We wanted a layout that would fit in with the other stations we are building on the system, which really needed to act like a scenic fiddle yard. So lots of loop tracks and platforms fitted the bill. Building one end would make a poor layout in my view. It would require a scenic section as wide as it is long (about 9ft square) and you would need a fiddle yard each end able to take a loco and a full length train, which would make the layout two thirds fiddle yard and one third scenic, which isn't a ratio that I like. If you make it a continuous run, you would need a huge space as with a smallest radius of, say, 3ft, the largest radius would have to be 11ft. the other problem is that Nottingham Vic. is all about the big "hole in the ground". So if you model the sides, you end up looking down on everything. If you leave a side off, it isn't Nottingham Vic. I know it has been modelled in Australia as I have been shown photos. In that case, the cutting side had slits cut in it that you viewed the layout through, which is a novel approach.
  17. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit Lime Street in its home setting. I went with a couple of friends. We spent a few hours there, able to get up close to the layout and really examine and appreciate some of the superb modelling in there that you just can't see from behind an exhibition barrier. We didn't run a single train yet I enjoyed seeing it like that more than I do watching it at shows. I did say to John that it is a layout that has as much impact as a static exhibit as it does an operational layout.
  18. I know one or two people who have started models of Kings Cross as it is surprisingly short. The big problems are the width and the fact that so much of it is covered over and difficult to view from the outside. I seriously considered modelling Nottingham Victoria one time, when a 40ft long shed became available. From tunnel to tunnel needed about 26ft in 4mm scale. It should fit easily! Yet it would have had to be about 9ft wide to include the station building and around 75% would be under the overall roof. So it would be fascinating to operate but you would hardly see the trains at all. It is one of the reasons why I have nearly always modelled fictional locations. I have never found any real place that was able to be built in a sensible space, interesting operationally with a good variety of stock and visually appealing.
  19. It sounds as if you are finally narrowing things down! I think it is a decent plan and idea but I would not have the headshunt. The main purpose of a headshunt is to allow shunting without blocking the running line but as you have to go onto the running line to access the headshunt, it doesn't serve any useful prototypical purpose. If you were to make that into two carriage sidings instead, that would be far more practical and useful. Even if you can't fit a full length train in one of them, it would be a good place to store horse boxes, carriage trucks etc. for attaching to passenger trains. You could have the pilot collect a horse box, run round and shunt it to the loading dock. It pauses there for loading while another train arrives or leaves then it is attached to the front of a passenger train. That is very much a "Buckingham" sort of move and adds much interest to the operation.
  20. I would agree with the remark about a thin black line between the green and the cream, along the lower edge of the horizontal beading. If it was shadow, it would change thickness where the vertical beading crosses the horizontal beading but it doesn't. I am catching just a tiny suggestion of a pale line (possibly white or gilt?) above the black line too but that is very much less clear to me. I find these discussions fascinating. It always astonishes me just how much we don't really know about such things. Does a painting and lining spec. survive anywhere? One of the late Malcolm Crawley's railway memories was of being at York, as a very young boy in the late 1920s or very early 1930s. He saw a red and cream carriage with steam coming out of it and wondered what it was. Later, he came to learn that it was a steam railcar in the early livery.
  21. I would agree with he comments about the length of the station throat. There is a balance to the design that works really well with, say, a 4ft board with platforms, a 4ft board with the station throat and a 4ft traverser or suchlike for a fiddle yard. Shortening the station throat can upset that balance a bit. Even in my "mini" version with just one crossover, I have still kept the 4ft platform and the 4ft throat. I have just used really long points to improve the look of trains snaking from one track to the next and given enough length for any shunting from one line to another to have at least part of the stock, or a whole loco, to go beyond a signal and reverse, without it all disappearing into the fiddle yard. It just allows the throat to "breathe" a little and to have a few inches of track between the front of a train and the first point, so the loco can be not jammed right up to the starting signals. If I find that it isn't very satisfactory to operate with just the one crossover, I have an option to add an extra board between the station and the fiddle yard, with the missing crossover and perhaps a small loco servicing facility and maybe even a small turntable. The layout was always planned with potential development in mind. At some point a junction will be inserted to allow a smaller "twig off the branch" station to go in front of the fiddle yard too.
  22. I have a couple of suggestions regarding the speed limit signs. One would be that the stencil cut out restriction sign is in the middle of a junction and it may not be immediately obvious which line or lines it applied to. In this case, unusually I would have thought, the sign applies to two tracks. The written sign makes clear that it applies to both lines and that it continues up to the road bridge. The other would be that the written sign may predate the stencil one but was not removed when the new one was added. They are just a couple of guesses. In either case, the loco crew should be up to date on their route knowledge and it should just be a bit of a reminder.
  23. I had the pleasure of seeing this at the bash at Derby last weekend, along with the other Modbury locos. They are simply gorgeous!
  24. Some cracking point building there. Is it a new layout or are these older photos of one done a while ago?
  25. Pretty much what I said earlier. There was usually (always?) a reason for such arrangements, even if you have to really dig around a bit to find out what it was.
×
×
  • Create New...