goldngreen

Interesting. I carefully ballast the extra bit of plastic between the sleepers around the tie bar, applying the glue carefully with a cocktail stick. I do however like this option and may give it a try next time.

The cobbles look very realistic. Worth the time spent.

Outstanding.

Good stuff. The sound on the video is well done and makes a big difference.

My most recent project is not very ambitious: a coal merchants office for the yard. It is based very closely on the Scalescenes kit, however I modified the window to suit a prototype I found on the far right of a picture of Kings Heath Station, just because I liked it. I realised having completed the build that it is quite similar to a OO gauge kit given away by Metcalfe on the front of the Railway Modeller a couple of years ago. The brick work is just the Scalescenes original however I put the arch in over the window using The Gimp. The roof is home made from a photo, squared up and joined in to a larger sheet also using The Gimp. The chimney pot is a white metal casting from Langley. I can only find the OO gauge ones on their web page but I picked the N gauge ones up at a show. The gutters and down pipes are Ratio. The overgrown ivy is Woodland Scenics. The coal merchant will fill a gap at the back of the yard.

It looks good. I like your third rails. The goods shed and engine shed (Peco I think) remind me of a layout I had many years ago on which I used both of those kits.

They look good. The coursed rubble walls are particularly effective.

Me too. Sorry to see you go.

I have seen a model of Stamford shed with the wooden extension at a show in the last few years. I am not sure where. I also found a picture of the original with the wooden extension. Sorry to hear about the roof on your model. I have not suffered from the problem with PVA.

The old cab control book I was referring to:

I came across a model I made some time ago just for interest when I did not have a layout: Stamford Engine Shed in N gauge based on the Prototype Kit: I scanned in the original Prototype kit and then used The Gimp to replace all of the brick surfaces with a Scalescenes equivalent. The roof tiles were replaced using the same technique with a home made slate paper made from a photo of the roof of the school at the Beamish Museum. The water tank sides were drawn from scratch in The Gimp. The kit was then printed on similar thickness card to the Prototype kit and built the same way as the original using the supplied windows. It was finished with Ratio guttering and chimney pots made from plastic sheathe stripped from electric wire. Looking back at it now I can see many rough edges but I think the original building is a great prototype. It has no place on my GWR Marlott though so back in its box! This is the original prototype kit which I believe is still available from Freestone Model Accessories. I thought I had done a post on this some time ago but cannot find it. Do old entries in these blogs get archived after some period? Anyway, if you had already seen this then apologies for the duplicate.

I have my daughter on my layout thanks to Model.

In control I explained how the underside of the layout is wired. Now for the controllers and control panel. I decided on two controllers. This is perhaps more than necessary for a layout of this size but I wanted two controllers to get optimum control of different loco types. I find that the older locos and some recent ones respond better to PWM feedback controllers. I used the now defunct ECM controllers on earlier layouts many years ago and found them to be highly effective. The modern locos with coreless motors respond badly to PWM controllers and can be damaged by them, as explained here. The PWM controller is a Gaugemaster Model DF. It includes 2 PWM controllers and importantly 2 transformers (required for common return wiring). It also has a 16v AC output. My other controller is a Gaugemaster Model W hand held, powered off the AC output from the Model DF. I also need a control panel to mount the section switches. I decided that this would be the central hub so the Model DF, the Model W and the layout would only be connected to the central hub. This avoids a mesh of wires between different components keeping things tidy. For the hub controller I wanted a simple box with switches, sockets and a track diagram. Carpentry is not my strongest suit so I looked for a practical solution. I puzzled for some time before remembering a trick we used as radio control boat modellers in the 70s to protect the expensive radio control gear. The components were mounted in Tupperware containers with small holes for control wires. The top could be flipped off easily for access. Although not providing a tight seal due to the holes, this kept splashes off the electrical gear. I did not have the water proof requirement but a readymade plastic box seemed like a good option. I looked around for a suitable plastic box and found my best option at The Range. It is a robust black box with a semi transparent lid allowing my printed track plan to show through when mounted on the inside. Power comes in to the box from the Model DF via two phono sockets on the left, one for the controller and one for the 16v AC. The handheld Model W is connected via a 5 pin din socket on the right hand side which provides power out and control back in. Four switches are mounted at the top of the box to control the sections which are colour coded on the diagram. The switches are 3 way, up for one controller, down for the other and centre off. Control to the layout leaves via a 5 pin din socket at the back.

To yard crane or not to yard crane. That is the decision facing me now. Am I going to start building this yard crane today and, if I do, will it have a place on the layout?

I opted for DC rather than DCC for a number of reasons including: I have a number of older locomotives that would be more difficult to chip I felt that DCC was unnecessary on such a small layout – although I am now in two minds and I ended up over-engineering the DC anyway! I chose cab control as described in Wiring the Layout Part 2 (my copy is about 40 years old but I do not think cab-control has changed much) mainly because it is what I had done before on a previous larger layout. So despite its small size the layout is divided into 4 sections. This does have the advantage that I am not relying on the points for isolation. I have used the common return approach to minimize the number of wires under the baseboard and between the layout and the control panel, with a view to using some old 5 pin din leads to connect the layout to the control panel; 4 sections means 5 wires, one for each section plus one for the common return. Here is a view under the baseboard. Figure 1 shows one of the droppers from the track. The droppers are terminated immediately under the baseboard into choc-box connectors. This makes it easy to reconfigure if necessary and also means that the wiring does not pull at the droppers. The droppers are fixed to the underside of the track by first removing a small section of the track plastic webbing, then filing the underside of the rail with a needle file to provide a rough surface to bond to. About 4 mm of the dropper wire was stripped and about 2mm of the stripped section bent at 90 degrees. This right angle section was soldered to the underside of the track. The droppers were poked through the drilled holes when laying the track and then connected to the choc-box connectors. This makes the droppers completely invisible from the top side. Figure 2 shows the central bank of connectors for all of the sections. The wires are colour coded, yellow for common return with a different colour for each section. The central bank is connected to the 5 pin din edge connector (3). Figure 4 shows an alternative connector at the back of the layout which is currently not used but could be wired to the central bank in the same way as the front connector. I now wish I had included isolated sections at the end of each siding. I might try to incorporate them later but it will mean some droppers that are not as tidy as those that were put in before the track was laid and ballasted.

Great idea for the cones. I might steal that one if I need any for a future project.

Excellent. I really enjoyed the video. The slate walls of the cottages and other buildings are very convincing. I love the looming backscene which really evokes the scale of the mountains in the area especially with the cloudy forbidding sky. In particular I like the way you have integrated the backscene with the model at the top of the street. I could say so much more but it all looks great and leaves viewers in no doubt about which part of the world we are in.

I like the use of chalk. I will have to remember that.

If you give it a go, I hope it works out for you.

Great images. Merry Christmas.

The mound is looking good now. Good progress everywhere especially the good shed. Initial progress on the river suggests it will be very convincing.

It looks brilliant. In addition to all the above I also love the colour on the brick and the care taken to get convincing mortar courses; the way it is bedded in to the really effective ground, and, despite the fact that it is made out of repeating sections, I can see no joins. Thanks for posting.

Last year I was asked a question about how I intended to actuate the points. Unfortunately I missed that question and so have only just responded. Apologies to Jack Benson for that. Here is the explanation I promised. I am using stiff push/pull wires under the baseboard as shown here: The other components in the design are choc-box connectors. The brass insides of the choc-box connectors are used as joiners for the wire to allow the system to be re-configurable (see 1). The consequence is that it can, in theory, be reconfigured to operate from the front or the back by undoing a couple of screws and connecting the handle to the other side. Another brass choc-box-inside is used directly under the point. A groove is filed in to the side of the brass connector into which a vertical wire is soldered. This engages with the point via a hole in the baseboard (see 2). The wires are guided by brass tube which is held in place using the plastic outside part of choc-box connectors (see 3). I have one side of the double-slip mounted in line with the Y point. The consequence is that I needed to divert the control of the Y point sideways past the double-slip actuator. This is done using more choc-box-internals with filed grooves and soldered wires to effect a horizontal bridge (see 4). I needed the double bridge with tension on the wires to make it stiff enough. A similar approach is used to operate the switches required to complete the double slip electrical continuity (see 5). The wires stick a short distance out of the front of the layout. They are covered with small plastic handles. Label 6 shows one of the holes for the alternative rear operation configuration. I cannot have these permanently setup since at home it is against a wall. The use of the adjustable screw connectors makes it easy to fettle the system to get the right tolerances. It is also easy to fix if something goes wrong although it has been working reliably since installation. I think I got the basic idea from a BRM article which, unfortunately, I cannot find now.

Looking good. I wait to hear the later bit on the gear train - I hope you have a solution. Do you use a magnifying aid or just very good eyesight?

The track looks really good. I hope it goes well.