Jub45565

Indeed, just over a year is not really a long wait in RTR gestation periods, and most people would prefer the result to be well researched and prototyped before release. If this is a must have which your layout can't possibly continue without, build or pay someone to build a kit. There have been at least 3 4mm kits for these, Nucast & Alexander Models I don't think are currently available new, while the London Road Models one is. The good thing about rising RTR prices, is that for those umming and ahing about whether to kit build or wait, the relative cost of a kit is coming back to a comparable level (including all the extra trimmings of wheels, motors, gearboxes etc required).

Yeah I agree with you - in my mind that is stupid. For a start, it helps if you have somehow missed something (we are human, and do make mistakes) if you indicate beforehand which warns the person you've missed that you might start veering into them - but also adds an extra pointless step in the process. Ie look, think (do I need to indicate), yes/no, plus when someone appears half way around the roundabout you have to rethink and start doing. Just do the indications at all times regardless, you don't get flustered if someone appears, etc..., it just becomes another subconscious part of driving leaving the conscious part of the brain to worry about/observe all the other people driving around trying to kill you...

No major issue, but it confused me so I thought I'd mention it (don't worry, I won't start posting about everything which confuses me ;-)). There may be a good reason why the two different areas exist. GWR Coaching stock is in Forums>Modelling Zone>Special Interests, while LMS Coaching stock is in Forums>Modelling Zone>Prototype>Special Interests - UK Prototype. The LMS ones are hard to find (I went via finding a topic I knew I had posted in) - as seeing the GWR Coaching stock on the forums page led me to believe it would also be under that section of special interests. It generally looks like the UK prototype zone, even though in the modelling zone, is more about prototype discussions than how to implement them in model form, while the other special interest area focuses a bit more on the modelling. So I can see the two being different areas, but would personally group these two in the same area (and would think that would be where the GWR bit is). Cheers,

I'm not at home just now so can't answer properly, but the article you need in terms of which other diagrams were motor fitted is in the LMS Journal Volume 12. There is also a bit of a discussion on D1964A and D2122 specifically on the topic linked below. As you say the D1964A is available, but there is no source for a D2122 - to answer my question at the bottom of the follow thread I'm pretty sure a single door would be wider than one half of a double door pair.

Unfortunately it isnt quite in focus so the detail which would be in the photo is rather lost, but I thought the photo of the ammonia empties which is on the Settle junction wikipedia page may be of interest both to Dave & other readers... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settle_Junction_railway_station Cheers, Pete

I thought it might be of interest to share the following Youtube link, covering the branch (though not specifically Rylstone unfortunately. It is quite late on, but surprisingly (to me) includes an Ivatt class 4 as well as a standard 75xxx. I saw it shared on the 'Old Skipton pics' Facebook group.

Regarding 9Fs I think both have charms of their own, but it is good to see the lesser modelled bits (and of course actually modelled rather than RTP ;-) ) I like the ballasting - good to see it looking horse friendly.

Sorry to bring it back to this, but the best bit was the way they quoted the whole of that long list to moan about it! Please keep the bargains coming...

Wow! Thats amazing Dave. Some of these things will be completely passed by by the casual observer, but something my level of OCD is aspiring to (and as you say, dragging time with it!)

Which variant of Mark 2 is that? I haven't heard of it...

Yes, my guess is that the idea is that there wouldn't be anything propelled towards them, so maybe hoped that rather than specifically throw errant vehicles in the dirt they would just stop at the pinch point? On the topic of goods shed photos, there is one of the goods yard after the shed was demolished, which does help show the place in sat in relation to the (remaining) sidings and loading dock (P47 of the Donald Binns book, just below the photo from which the sketch in the pdf Kevin has shared comes from). I look forward to seeing developments when you get to the stage of a layout topic Kevin!

I personally think it loses a bit of the prototypes feel, but can see the attraction of combining the crossover and diamond. However I would keep it as a single slip, as reaching the sidings from the platform road couldn't be done on the prototype.

For an example of where they (edit: traps within points) have been modelled (bit of a different configuration) see this layout:

It is clearer in the Midland Record, but can be seen here. The left hand one diverging more obvious, the right hand one seen if you know it is there... Thanks Keith re 10/11 - I've updated my post. Correct Richard - not obvious on the photos on the disused station site, but is in photos in the Midland Records.

hi Kevin, Yes, the groundframe hut - sorry for confusing things. They do both left hand and right hand versions, the left hand as required half way down their 'scenery' products page: http://www.ambisengineering.co.uk/Products/Products_Index.htm Re the lack of scope without a signal box, it does in some ways add more operational scope than a lot of BLTs - the freight loco often locked in at Barnoldswick (and could still shunt those sidings fed directly from the loop) - and then the loco coupled to the passenger train when it arrived to either double head or top and tail back to Earby. But I agree in other ways it restricts it. Many MR branches by the mid 50s had become 1 engine in steam, with a gap in the afternoon for the freight - but if looking pre nationalisation there could well be more operational interest to bring in from other locations. edited to answer the first question - the Peco traps are standalone, so would need adding beyond the point. The way Barnoldswick implemented them looked wuite fun as having them within the point. The hand would depend on the direction they were joining the main route (ie throw any wagons out of the way of the mainline, rather than towards it).

The top pair of sidings, if you fancy some fancy trackwork (not that the 3 way and diamond inset in the level crossing isnt enough!) had traps within the point, and would make a good feature. . Operationally this way because the sidings that side of the diamond crossing could only be shunted with the token. Im not sure how this could be done, and look similar, with removing one of these sidings - though I do agree that less is often more. The traps are visible in Midland record no 7 page 39, and also in this photo: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/barnoldswick/index8.shtml The signal cabin is available as an etch from Ambis Engineering by the way. I havent looked into the goods shed, as that had been demolished by the mid 50s. The cramped nature of the scheme in the post Joseph quoted (we appear to have lost post numbers?!) is probably alieviated a bit by the level crossing relocating across the diamond.

Just found this via google - including Barnoldwick in the topic title could have helped catch my eye earlier :-) I wouldn't worry about points on board joints as long as the switch blades are fully on one board. I've got several on my Ilkley layout, specifically placed to test that theory, and they are working and keeping well aligned fine. I have been/am considering Barnoldswick as my next layout, in a similar scheme which would allow the middle board to not be used at home - so effectively a bit more of an interesting Inglenook, with the station and goods yard included where space permitted. This would mean keeping things in line to allow the different boards to plug in or out, and also means leaving along the above option of staggering points over board joints. If you don't have them already, Midland Records 7 and 10 have good articles and photos on the prototype. (edited 10 not 11, thanks for picking up on this Keith!) As to DC/DCC, I would go DCC in that it keeps a higher track voltage at all times. The biggest drawback of DC is that shunting is done with fewest volts (and DC which is less likely to break through dirt). I don't think EM/P4 would be punching above your weight - they are both very much achieveable - but it depends what you enjoy doing with your time. If you enjoy the 'modelling' side then there is a lot more to do, while if you want to quickly get to a point of operating things then the slower progress/more things to do to get there may be disheartening. I don't buy into the theory of people not being capable - skills are generally there to be learnt (sight and dexterity aside) - but it is a hobby so we need to focus on the parts of it we enjoy, while making the finished article look like we want it to.

I'd vote for Wrexham, followed by 70s Scotland! It Will be interesting to see it develop whatever you choose though Martin.

Hi Tom, Yes, I'm not particularly well versed in NE stock, and the formation does seem to have changed pretty much every year (or possibly more regularly than that...). There are several photos on the old Embsay site, most of which is still accessible though the Ilkley links they seem to have broken. This one is in 1955 and is the best overall train view (as opposed to focussing on the loco - but there are 2 around Embsay on that front with Gresley brakes leading), with the front two being Thompsons and then presumably all Gresleys with a mixture of underframe types. I presume the penultimate two coaches are still in LNER teak or wartime brown - if the date is correct it is too early for maroon, and they shouldnt be in all over crimson. edited to say that that is supposed to be a link to the photo on the embsay site, rather than actually bringing the photo in...!

Hi Jol, Sorry - complete brain lapse yesterday! It is the L&Y 2-4-2T I have in the queue, but this will still therefore be of specific interest watching the radial trucks come together. LNW wise there are a few motor fitted diagrams on my agenda, some of which are covered by LRM offerings, which is probably where my mind got mixed up.

Hi Tom, Yes, I'm not sure what the rules were to be honest - presumably even empties would have traces remaining, but I guess the general reasoning was overall heat causing expansion which would be less problematic with small remnants? Yes that makes sense. There are 1958 carriage working in the BRCoachingStock yahoo group (Yahoo groups may generally be very much 20th Century, but there is a wealth of info in this one definitely worth being a member of. In the files of that group is a Carriage_Workings_Google-Drive_BRCS_01-01-19.pdf which includes these 1958 NE working workings. That has it listed as SO Saltburn/West Hartlepool to Blackpool Central. The Working is BCK (2-2), 2SK(8), 4SK(8), BCK (2-2), SK(8),BCK(2-2). (sections for Saltburn and West Hartlepool, and a section dividing for Southport - but all 10 coaching in the rake through Ilkley. From this the BCK 2-2's (ie 2 3rd compartments, 2 1st compartments) must be Gresleys (the right diagrams are done by MJT) as the Thompsons had 3 thirds. The 8 compartment 3rds could be a mixture. However this is a single snapshot - there is a photo of it passing through Ilkley in 1955 and this had a Thompson brake at the front. I've seen 1958/9 rakes (photographed at Embsay) with a Gresley brake leading. At a glance in the list mentioned about I havent seen any for earlier years, but the NER as a region didn't exist at that point so I could be looking in the wrong parts of the list...

Sorry to nitpick, but it is Rolvenden and is P4. I'll be there helping out with it, and looking forward to it!

I seem to have missed those 2 posts - presumably with the forum downtime etc. Looking good Tom, have you used Dave Frank's method for the tanks (Plastruct tube and end caps, as covered on his Wharfeside layout topic) or followed a different route? They would generally have runner wagons between the loco and tanks too, though I have seen a couple of photos without. The Satburn - Blackpool trains used NE stock - from the photos I've seen a mixture of Thompson and Gresleys, and NE locos as far as Colne (B16s, B1s and occasionally K1s). There were plenty of other specials with LMS stock though. Yes Gordon... though that comes down to how accurate the dimensions of the tank are - there are several sources for (from memory) etched, resin and 3D printed tank panels so if going to the trouble of the bottom I might as well do the top! This one will have to do for now, the question is whether I build a bit of a platform to raise it a bit.

Only just noticed this one Jol, I'll be paying attention as there is one in my queue. What would you say is the best reference material for photos of the class and underframe detailing? (generally being a Midland or Grouping+ modeller, though I have the Jenkinson LMS book which covers the LNW constituents, am aware of the Barry Lane book but don't yet have it in my library).

Hi Andrew, Yes, thats me! Though I'm sure there must be millions of people out there building them at the moment - lovely little engines, and with all this inspiration too! Yes I have MRJ 92, and looking back at it this evening confirms that that is where I read about the Crownline etched ladder in it. Thanks Dave - I have large scale (A2 I think, 1.5" scale) GAs which have side and rear view, which look to cover it. Your sketches for the pony bits, and generally sharing your progress and ideas is payment enough. Cheers, Pete