Dungrange

I think the other difference is that without the bay platform, the second train would have to be a locomotive length shorter, so that the front of the locomotive stops before the clearance point of the crossover, whereas with the first train the locomotive only needs to stop such that the front coach is clear of the clearance point. If the second train is the same length and the platforms are also the same length, then in would be necessary to detrain the passengers and then set back a locomotive length to permit the run round.

@jhock If you need details of the signalling, look at https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/archivesignals/brscot.php and scroll down to 1987. Click on the '1987' before 'Inverness Phase 2 commissioning' and it will take you to a Special Notice, the end of which has a track plan showing what is controlled by the Inverness Signalling Centre - ie where all the signals are and what type of signals. This would presumably be as things were at the start of your time period, but the Freight Depot and No 1 and No 2 sidings adjacent to Platform 1 (the old Motorail terminal) most likely disappeared at some point in your time frame. I was aware that the remains of the harbour branch had been used for coal, but I don't recall ever having seen a train there at the times I visited the station. The Safeway trains were a bit after my time there, but I do recall having been told that's where they were unloaded. The signal plan referred to above, shows how the former Harbour Branch was connected in 1987.

It appears that there were some small track changes in the mid-1980s in advance of re-signalling in 1987, which is when the Inverness Signalling Centre opened (https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/I/Inverness_Signalling_Centre/) so I think the signalling would be fairly constant over the suggested period 1990 - date.

Okay, Google Translate translates the word 'Baw' as 'Dirt' and the word 'Ddwr' as 'Water'. I could therefore assume that if you put the two words together you'd get 'Dirt Water', but for some reason Google Translate thinks 'Baw ddwr' translates as 'Water fouling'. Ask it to translate 'Water fouling' into Welsh and it gives 'Baeddu dŵr'!!!! However, give it the English phrase 'Water dirt' and it does produce 'Baw Dŵr' as the Welsh equivalent. Interestingly, there seems to be various alternative spellings that translate to water and I note that Wikitionary refers to ddŵr as being a soft mutation of dŵr (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ddŵr#Welsh). I don't know why I care, because I have no intention of calling my layout Dirtwater, although Foulbrook sounds better, even if it has a similar meaning.

I think it depends on how accurately you want to replicate Millburn Yard, which depends on the space that you have available. I used to live in Inverness in the 1980s and on the whole, I'm tempted to say that not too much has changed, but some things have. Back in the 1980s there was no container yard being used by DRS to load Stobart rail containers. Unfortunately, I can't remember what was there - perhaps just a couple of overgrown sidings. The container loading is now clearly visible from Morrison's car park, but of course the supermarket and the adjacent extension to the Eastgate Shopping centre didn't exist back in the 1980s - I think they were both built in the early 2000s. There was however at that time Motorail loading facilities in Inverness station to the south of Platform 1, which have now gone. I seem to recall that what remained of the Harbour Branch was still extant back at that time, but I think was rarely used - I'm not sure if that is still there and connected to the rest of the network. However, looking across towards Millburn Yard from Millburn Road, I don't think there has been radical changes to the track layout that would preclude you forming a plausible dual era layout. I doubt that there is much signalling within the yard itself and I can't recall when semaphore signalling was replaced with colour light signalling.

I guess a lot of these on-line translation tools are not that great when we stray away from commonly used words. Going back to the Welsh 'Y Bawddwr', if I split 'Bawddwr' into 'Bawd dwr' (with a space), then Google Translate gives me 'The Water Thumb'. 'Y' being Welsh for 'The' and 'dwr' being the Welsh for 'water'. That would suggest to me that the origin of the name is perhaps derived from the shape of the watercourse or it's position relative to the other watercourses in the area.

Strangely enough, I don't get that translation, or at least not on Google Translate. https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=Bawddwr gives me the English 'Baddler'. If I change the Welsh to 'Y Bawddwr', which is the actual name of the River being discussed, I get the rather unhelpful 'The Bawddwr', which looks like no translation at all (https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=cy&tl=en&text=Y Bawddwr).

That's pretty much how I see things too. In our club, member subscriptions generally cover our overheads (rent, electricity, water charges and insurance) and the income that we get from attending exhibitions and the sale of donations is normally used to fund new layouts, tools etc - the things which could be considered discretionary spending. Obviously, we have lost the latter two income streams for the moment, but since the club isn't open (although bubbles of two is a possibility, Scottish Government restrictions preclude larger meetings), we're also not building new layouts and thus incurring these costs, so the priority is simply to be able to pay the bills so that the club is still around when things improve. Our electricity bills are also lower. My own club owns virtually no stock. What runs on our club layouts at exhibitions is almost exclusively owned by our members. Club layouts are built based on the shared interests of a group of members, so in general, each layout that is built can be stocked by several different individuals and if a signature locomotive or type of rolling stock is required, one of the members will generally buy the required stock themselves. It's only the layout (baseboards, track, wiring etc) that are paid for from club funds and the costs are spread over a number of years depending on our income. I suggest that you'll need to either slow the rate at which you build layouts or ask the members to contribute more.

Typing 'Y Bawddwr' into Google, I found http://www.discovercarmarthenshire.com/media/2491/llandovery.pdf, which on the second page states 4 Nant Bawddwr Llandovery takes its name from the least significant of all the rivers which encircle it. It served as an open sewer - no wonder it was called Bawddwr (dirty water, or Foulbrook). In 1836 it was put into an arched culvert and the streets paved over.

Well, the original post stated circa 1970, so I'm assuming the BR Corporate Blue era in which case there isn't a need to turn a locomotive on the triangle or have a locomotive depot. That would mean stabling a locomotive within the station as you suggest could be the best option and repurpose those sidings for an industry that is at the brink of closure.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're doing here and I've never done this myself, but there should be a common blue wire, so one set of LEDs should be connected to white and blue another to yellow and blue and what I think you are trying to achieve here is to rewire some of the LEDs that are currently on a circuit between yellow and blue to the green and blue wires. Of course just because these are standard colours for the decoder wires doesn't mean that the same colour of wire has been used by Bachmann on the Class 66. I may be wrong, but I would expect there to be some CV adjustment required to tell the decoder which function button is to operate the green wire. That will of course be dependent on the type of decoder that you are using.

I was thinking of the loco area as effectively part of the station (ie all one 'scene'), so I wasn't really considering the need for a separate destination as such but thinking of this as a private siding immediately outside of the railway goods facilities, where a wagon would be trip worked off an incoming goods train. It would therefore be part of the station working and therefore part of that 'scene'. I was assuming that a tall enough mill type building could block the view of the continuous run from the operating area, which I'm assuming would be in front of the main station. However, I can see the merit in having road bridges across both legs of the triangle from the station to divide the layout in two: a 'serious' station to the right and a 'train set oval' to the left with the loop on that oval effectively serving as a fiddle yard for realistic operation of the main station. There is even the opportunity to turn locomotives on the triangle, although that's not necessarily relevant if this is to be a post-steam era layout. Overall, I think your latest suggestion is probably the most suitable type of layout for the space that the Original Poster has available.

Correct. H0e is the H0 equivalent of 009 - narrow gauge models to 1:87 scale running on model track with a gauge of 9 mm. H0m is the same scale, but running on 12 mm track and normally used to represent metre gauge prototypes. To answer the original question though, you won't get a model of narrow gauge locomotive in 00 (which represents standard gauge prototypes).

The other place that you could put that 'Goods / Industry' siding would be in the middle of the triangle. Switch the left hand point for a right hand version and the track would then run parallel to the lower right side of the triangle. That would allow a larger access well to be provided. What was unsatisfactory with that arrangement?

When thinking through accessibility issues, there is a need to consider the layout height. The lower the layout, the further you can stretch to reach a derailment. For a layout below my waist level (ie around 900 mm from the floor), I can stretch around 850 mm. Raise the layout height to my chest (ie around 1.2 m from the floor) and I can only stretch around 700 mm. The difference is that when the layout is lower, I'd be bending from the waist, whereas if higher, I'm simply relying on the length of my arm. It's also worthwhile highlighting that scenery has an impact too. Whilst I can stretch around 700 mm over a layout set at a height of 1.2 m, if that layout were to have tall buildings or trees in the line I'm reaching across, then the distance I can stretch is less, as I need to bend my arm to avoid damaging trees, buildings, signals etc. What you may be able to do is arrange a small access hole in the centre of your circle, which you can access from underneath. You'd then place some scenic item to cover this, such as a shopping centre. This could be removable, and then you could crawl under the board and reach up from below. This isn't just to handle a derailment, but also to clean the track.

Welcome to RMWeb. Do you have any scope to widen the shelf part of the layout where your diagram says 'Truck 'parking'', as this might allow you to have an out and back style layout rather than a branch line connected to a circle? That would therefore permit a train to leave your 'village backdrop' station and return without stopping and reversing. The problem that I see with the current track plan is that for any locomotive hauled train leaving your 'village backdrop' station, once it enters the circle, there is nowhere to run round for the return journey other than using the loop with your 'small factory', which doesn't look long enough to accommodate a Class 25 and a couple of Mark 1 coaches. My other comments would be: Do you have access to the corner hill with tunnel from the left? If not, it's probably a rather big stretch from the grey shaded area, which I presume is where you would intend to operate from. The platform at the 'village backdrop' station seems rather too short for passenger trains. Assuming these are the Hornby type that you've shown, each segment is about 6 1/2 inches and you've shown three, which means you have little more than 18" for the platforms. For a locomotive hauled train, whilst you may just fit two coaches into that, the locomotive certainly wont. A two car DMU will be a rather tight fit, so I'd lengthen the platform by one foot. I'd also merge the two platform tracks closer to the platform, to possibly lengthen the sidings labelled 'Truck 'parking''. I'm sure others will be along to post their opinions.

My understanding is that 7/0.2 wire is considered okay for 'short' dropper wires, which are normally taken as up to 300 mm in length and above that 16/0.2 is more appropriate (which is what you are describing). In my case, my longest dropper wires will be at least 2m, but the consensus on the thread linked to above is that dropper wires of 2 - 3 m are okay in 16/0.2 and there is no specific need to up the wire to 24/0.2, which is what I was considering. In your case, I'd be tempted to either go with 16/0.2 or since you already have the 7/0.2 wire, double up the connectors (ie if you twist two 7/0.2 wires together to produce a single dropper, then you'll have 14 strands, which should be close to the situation that you'd have with 16/0.2). However, I'd only propose that since you already have reels of 7/0.2. If you're going to need to buy more wire, buy 16/0.2.

I doubt that anyone will have compiled the data for all classes of DMU and all TOCs, but the information is certainly available for some - eg First Scotrail Class 158 re-livery dates are at http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/Class+158+Relivery+First+ScotRail. However, the equivalent Class 170 data is incomplete - http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/Class+170+Relivery+Details although the subsequent re-livery dates into the current Scotrail livery appears to be complete - http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/Class+170+Scotrail+Relivery+Details.

CVs 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not sound addresses and apply to all decoders. CV2 = starting voltage CV3 = acceleration rate CV4 = deceleration rate CV5 = voltage at maximum speed See the NMRA standard for details relating to the standard CVs at https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-9.2.2_decoder_cvs_2012.07.pdf For sound, the relevant CVs are not specified by the NMRA and each decoder manufacturer has their own standard, so you'll need to refer to the relevant decoder manufacturers manual to get all the details of what controls what. I think for a steam train the number of 'chuffs' per wheel revolution will be dependent on whether you have a two, three or four cylinder engine, but yes, I would expect a 'chuff' after every complete wheel revolution.

What benefit do you think Kadee couplings would offer relative to the Hunt couplings? I see Kadee couplings as clearly superior for stock that is going to be shunted, but if stock is to be operated as a fixed rake, then there is no slack in the Hunt system, which means that the stock is a fixed distance apart irrespective of whether the power car is at the front or rear of the set. In videos posted on YouTube, I'm impressed, albeit I've not seen them in use in real life. My own approach is, I think, going to be to fit Kadee to locomotives and some coaches / wagons, but to use these Hunt couplings within rakes that I don't intend to split during an operating session. However, whilst I've fitted some stock with Kadee couplings, I've still to try out the Hunt system.

Does anyone know whether Roco produce templates for these in the way that Peco do? The website (https://www.roco.cc/en/product/22677-0-0-0-0-0-0-005002003-0/products.html) states that the radius of main track and branch track 826.4 mm (R9), arc angle 30°. However, the BWI9/10 description would imply that whilst the inner curve may be 826.4 mm, the outer radius may be R10, which seems to be 888 mm (https://www.roco.cc/en/product/22666-0-0-0-0-0-0-005002004-0/products.html). I'm wondering which is correct? One thing I note is that the check rails seem quite short (ie they don't look as though they extend very far beyond the tip of the common crossing). I'm wondering how easy it would be to combine these to create a curved scissors crossing - I really want one at the entrance to my fiddle yard and don't relish the prospect of hand building one.

Simple question really. I understand that 7/0.2 wire is generally considered okay for short length droppers between the track and the DCC Power Bus (up to 300 mm) and 16/0.2 wire should be used for longer droppers. How long would a dropper need to be before I should step up to the next wire size (ie 24/0.2)? The reason that I ask is because I'm looking at adding block occupancy (current) detectors between the track and the DCC Power Bus (something like https://www.digikeijs.com/en/dr5088rc-digidetect.html) which effectively means that I'll have some dropper wires that will be more than 2 metres in length and have to cross baseboard joins. I'd prefer to purchase a couple of reels (red and black) of either 16/0.2 or 24/0.2 for all dropper wires, so is there a reason not to go with 24/0.2 apart from the extra couple of pounds per reel? The DCC Power bus is 2.5 mm2 and the DCC System I'm using is capable of delivering 5 Amps.

I sympathise with the problems of liking large stock. I've often considered the idea of building a small inglenook type shunting layout. The standard format comprises three sidings that are capable of holding, three, three and five wagons, with a head-shunt that can accommodate a locomotive and three wagons - see http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Inglenook/inglenook-trackplan.html if you're not aware of the Inglenook track plan. The problem is that most of my stock is from the post privatisation era and is fairly large - I like large bogie wagons. I'm also not keen on the sharpness of set-track point work, preferring the geometry of larger radius points. However, to operate a standard Inglenook with say a Bachmann Class 66, a number of Heljan Cargowaggons along with Peco large radius points and I'd need at least ten feet, which means that it's no longer a small layout. It's certainly no-where near the four or five foot long version that modellers from earlier eras can manage. I'd agree with that. Basically, you have wherever the train starts off (the fiddle yard), a trains length of point work that forms a station throat and the length where the train will finish up (ie at a platform). The middle third could be made shorter (ie effectively down to the length of a single point), but the more you shorten the central section, the less operational interest there will be. Ultimately, I think you either need to find more space, or lose the bigger stock and focus on buying stock that would suit a small layout.

Unfortunately, your lack of space and desire for large stock means that you simply can't have something that has operating potential. Your Hornby Class 395 'Javelin' is almost four foot long. If the available length for your layout is only four feet, then it is impossible to build anything other than a diorama, as there is simply nowhere to drive the 'Javelin' to. It is possible to build a layout with some operating potential on a four foot by two foot baseboard, but the operating potential comes from using short stock - eg a class 08 shunter or 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 tank locomotive or similar with short wheelbase four wheel wagons. I'm thinking about the Inglenook concept. Once you move to wanting larger stock, you need to build a longer layout or forego any operational interest. Is there any possibility of splitting the space you have available to create a layout that is eight foot in length, but only one foot wide? If you hinged this, it could then fold to four foot by two foot for storage but would be opened out into a longer thinner baseboard for operation. Ultimately, if you want operational interest, you need a space where the length of the layout is at least twice the length of the trains that you want to run. As others have said, your first limiting point isn't really a limiting point either by soldering directly to the rail or using pre-wired rail joiners to ensure that you have power everywhere you need it.

I've not used these yet, but you might want to consider Hunt Couplings - https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-new-c-2/hunt-couplings-elite-oo-gauge-new-c-21/buckeye-elite-couplings-c-28/hunt-couplings-elite-buckeye-pack-for-hst-set-with-nem-couplings-oo-gauge-p-132 I'm tempted to try these on my own HST once I get my layout up and running - it doesn't have any track laid yet, so trying out alternative couplings isn't a priority for me at the moment.