Dungrange

No, I'm sure that most of us haven't. One question that hasn't been asked so far is the proposed layout height (and how tall you are). It's relevant insofar as that affects how far you can reach to clean track etc. If the layout is quite high (ie chest height), then you'll only be able to stretch the length of your arm (probably 24-26"), whereas if the layout is at a lower height (ie waist height), then you should be able to stretch a bit further (probably 30-32", and maybe a bit more if you're of slimmer build) because you get a few inches of extra reach from bending at the waist. With a 5' wide board, you should be able to reach everywhere provided the layout isn't mounted too high, but you'll also need to consider the scenery that you're proposing, insofar as you don't want to be stretching over signals, buildings etc to clean the track.

I wouldn't really expect to see a DMU in your 'industrial area'. What is the intended industry? I'm not sure that I understand how you propose to operate this 'industrial area'. In essence I would anticipate that there would be a number of separate areas. An arrivals line (ie a place where your mainline train drives into) One or more loading / unloading areas, which your shunter is going to move wagons to/from A departures area (ie a place where the loaded (or empty) wagons are placed ready for collection by your next mainline train). At the moment, it seems like you have a lot of 'industrial area' trackwork, but you might need to talk us through how you think this will work. Assuming this industrial area is just for the movement of goods (eg raw materials in and finished goods out) then your passenger trains will be confined to the two outside circuits. The outside (clockwise circuit) has nowhere for a train to go apart from round and round (or into your industrial area - which isn't realistic for a passenger train). The inner (clockwise circuit) does have a loop, but it's very short. In the real railway, such a short loop would only accommodate a single locomotive between the fouling points of points number 7 and 8. The fouling point is the location at which the distance between the tracks reduces to less than 6' (as measured between the two rails that converge at the frog. In the prototype this would be at either end of the straight pieces of track (ST-200) in your loop. In model form, it looks like you've used flexi-track for the curves at each end, so I suspect that you may be able to fit a bit more into your loop without a collision, but you'll definitely be restricted to a first generation DMU or a loco and one coach or a loco and maybe two / three wagons at most. Are you content with such short trains?

I've no experience of Peco Code 55, but we do get derailments on club layouts (mainly 00), but it's certainly not everything / all the time. It's usually, say, the fourth wagon in a train that frequently derails (in which case there is obviously an issue with that wagon, so it's removed) or it's several trains derailing at one location (in which case it's the track or perhaps more commonly a baseboard joint that needs to be adjusted). Are you able to see the location at which the train starts to derail? Can you push the offending locomotive through the point work and observe the issue. The bogie may come off the track first, but it doesn't mean that it's not an out of tolerance driving wheel hitting the frog that's causing the bogie to lift. I have heard others say that diamond crossings are not the most reliable, but have no direct experience (in any scale).

What we really need is @Chimer to find this topic. He usually has plenty of ideas for plans. I've seen plenty of well made Metcalf kits, although my preference would be for either plastic kits or laser cut Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF). However, these are obviously less suitable if you're looking to avoid painting. If card kits is the most likely approach, I'd advise you to start with something like the Small Goods Store from Scalescenes, which is available as a free download. Print it off and try assembling as many times as you need to perfect the technique and if card modelling is for you, then download some of their other products or pick one of the Metcalf kits. If you find you don't get on with card, then we can explore the alternatives with you. https://scalescenes.com/product/r002-small-goods-store/

As @ITG has already indicated, I don't understand why you think you need to put a straight between the turnouts that are forming your crossovers. If you were making a true scale model, your track centreline to centreline distance should be 45mm (1.77"). Unfortunately, none of us have the space to accommodate scale curves and as we adopt tighter curves we need to increase the spacing between the tracks to accommodate the end throw and overhang of our models. If you place two Peco streamline points together to form a crossover (without a straight), then your parallel tracks will be 50.8 mm (2") apart. This spacing is adequate for layouts with a minimum radius of about 2' 6" or greater. If you can achieve curves of this radius, then it looks more realistic. If however, you have to adopt tighter curves, then you need to widen the spacing further. However, there should be no need to go above the set track spacing of 67mm (2.64"). This is more than enough space to avoid two pieces of stock colliding on 1st and 2nd radius curves. If you plan to use 2nd and 3rd radius curves, then you'll automatically have the correct 67 mm spacing provided your curves start and end at the same point. However, it's perhaps worthwhile highlighting that you can mix both streamline (code 100) and set track (which is also code 100) in the same layout, but it is the radius that you select for your corners that will define the centre to centre spacing that you need to adopt. If you wanted your double track circuit to use the streamline spacing, then you should be aiming for curves at either end with radii of approximately 2'6" (inner) and 2'8" (outer), which should fit on a 6' wide board. You would however have to test this with whatever stock you plan to use. Sorry if I confused you. If you're designing the layout in SCARM or Anyrail, then set the board to the space that you have available (which I think was 9' x 6') as these packages have a library of accurate templates. I only suggested looking at 8' x 5' layouts in plan books, because there are a lot of hand drawn or sketched plans out there that claim that the layout can be built on an 8' x 5' board, but in reality it can't (unless you're happy for some of the track to hang off the edge of the baseboard). In terms of the two yards, the points controlling entry to the yard need to be the other side of the points that make up your crossover, so that a train exiting from the yard can cross over onto the clockwise circuit immediately rather than having to run halfway round the layout to use a crossover on the other side.

The issue of first radius curves that @RobinofLoxley highlights is a good point and perhaps best explained with reference to a plan of set-track geometry. https://support.Hornby.com/hc/en-gb/article_attachments/10406061442332 is plan of the Hornby trackwork. First radius is track with a radius of 371 mm. This is adequate for a lot of older models (manufactured pre-1990) or items of stock with a short wheelbase, but most modern stock will state on the box that it has been designed for a minimum radius of 438 mm (2nd radius). That doesn't means that it won't go round a first radius curve (it might), but that the manufacturer has only designed and tested it on second radius curves. The problems with operating such stock on first radius curves may be that the bogie hits the cylinders or part of the frame. Therefore, if possible, and it should be easy with the space you have available, go with 2nd and 3rd or 3rd and 4th radius for your curves. You can go with even more generous curves using Flxitrack. Unfortunately a lot of older plan books will be drawn with 1st and 2nd radius curves and therefore you'll need a bit more space than is shown in the book. I understand that Peco used to make first radius points, but neither Hornby or Peco have made these for many years. Again, this means that a workable plan may take up a bit more space than might be shown in the book. It's therefore easier to pick an 8' x 5' plan and stretch it. However, I think we need to better understand what you want. These are very important questions. Why do you want to have a model railway? Where do you draw your inspiration from? Was it standing on the end of a platform at Liverpool Street in the 1970s watching trains arrive and depart? Was it watching a small shunter working away in a marshalling yard? Was it sneaking into a locomotive depot as a teenager? Was it a holiday where you travelled by train or a preserved railway that you visited? In general most of us want to create something that reminds us of something that interested us in our past or present, or something we've read about. In my case, I'm about to start building a model based in 1921 - not because I was around then, but because it's the time that will allow me to operate the stock that I want to run and because I have a place I want to recreate in miniature I don't need to look for a plan - I just need a map and my track plan will be just like the prototype. I then just need to read books to better understand what life was like 100 years ago. In general, think about what your 'must haves' are and then what you'd like if you have space and what you definitely don't want.

Not sure why anyone would want to pay up to £25 for a second hand book, when Peco sell a new version for £1.60 - https://peco-uk.com/products/the-railway-modeller-book-of-60-plans It's not something that I'd build, but it will work to a point if all you want is a trainset to drive trains on. It can't be signalled because the track layout is not really prototypical, which is why it wouldn't be for me. The goods facilities are also nearly impossible to operate. Obviously, real trains travel between two places: A and B. They will also be able to make that same journey in reverse from B to A. One direction is referred to as the Up line and the other as the Down line. Originally, Up was the line travelling towards the company's headquarters, but latterly Up has always been taken as meaning towards London and Down would be away from London. Therefore trains arrive at Liverpool Street on the Up line, where they terminate, and then depart on the Down line towards Ipswich, Norwich or wherever. Signals are normally placed to the left of the running line (unless at a location with overhead gantries). The purpose of signals it to indicate to the driver whether he needs to stop and the route he's going to take. I'm assuming that the area to the top right is meant to represent a Traction Maintenance Depot (TMD). I think it would be unusual for this to be accessed by a facing point (that is one where you approach it from the 'toe' or 'switch' end). Such an arrangement was very much frowned upon in the earlier steam era, but is perhaps more common nowadays. Anyway, we'll ignore that for now. Starting with your outer circuit, trains would traverse this in a clockwise direction. We'll call this the Up line. Your top station has three platforms. If we number these from the baseboard edge, then Platform 1 is an Up platform (ie for travel towards London). This will be blocked every time you want to remove a locomotive from one of the dead end sidings in the TMD. The other two platforms at this station must be Down line platforms as there is no way for a train departing from these to join your clockwise circuit. That therefore means that trains departing from these platforms need to run in an anticlockwise direction. Platform 2 is presumably for express services, because it can't access a platform at your second station. Platform 3 is presumably for stopping services because it leads to what would have to be the Down platform at your second station. However, what you'll note here is that you have a double track section where both trains need to travel in the same direction (anticlockwise). Looking at the lower station, I'm not sure of the purpose of the dead end siding or how you might use this. Looking at the Goods Yard, you now have the ability to run round an arriving train (because you have a loco's length ahead of the release point). However, to complete your run-round and to undertake any shunting, your Goods Train is going to be blocking the Down mainline. This would have been quite common in sparsely populated rural backwaters, but not common in a more urban environment, which is what you are hoping to portray. On the real railway, a separate head-shunt would be provided to accommodate shunting of the mainline. A head-shunt is effectively a long siding that runs parallel to the mainline but faces the opposite way from your other sidings. However, the biggest drawback to the plan that you've presented is how do you operate a Goods Train? The exit from your goods yard is directly onto your Down line (anticlockwise), but the train is heading in the Up direction (clockwise), so this is wrong line running. To get to the Up (clockwise) line, you need to go through your facing crossover in the lower station. You can make a few circuits of that track, but then what? How do you get back to where you started? The only way is to stop in your lower station and reverse all the way along the Down line to get to the Goods Yard. You're never going to be able to drive a train into that yard with the locomotive leading. It therefore looks to me as though that's a plan that's been drawn up by someone who has never operated the layout that they've drawn.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/ This is the section of RMweb that all of those who like designing layouts tend to hang out in. Why do you want to use cork? It's a preference thing, but there are two reasons why some people use cork. The first is for sound deadening. Because there are voids in the cork, it can dampen the noise from the vibrations of the electric motor inside the locomotives. However, it's only really effective if you use a latex type glue such as Copydex. If you follow the method of ballasting using PVA glue, then the PVA fills the voids and make a rock hard track-bed that effectively eliminates any noise reduction characteristics. My preference is closed cell foam rather than cork. The second reason for using cork is just to lift the track bed above the surroundings. On the real railway, the tracks are laid in the ballast - ie there is ballast under the sleepers as well as between the sleepers. In model form, the cork (or foam) is used to represent the ballast under the sleepers so that the track is higher than the drains that would run alongside the formation in an area known as the cess. The amount of ballast under a mainline railway is much greater than under a little used branch-line or a yard (where there may have been little or no ballast - just ash cinders). The ballast shoulder (ie the edge where the ballast slopes down from top of sleeper level into the cess) was much more pronounced in the steam era than it is today, despite more ballast being used in the modern railway. Personally, I see no reason for covering the whole board in cork. Yes, but only in this country. If you want to model continental Europe or North America, then their trains drive on the right. Obviously, on a single track line, trains travel in both directions and in some locations, particularly at busy stations, you'll find platforms that have signalling for bi-directional operation (ie they can be used in both directions), but for the vast majority of the network where there are two tracks, trains will only travel on the left track. Where they have to cross over to access a yard and travel a short distance on the right track, this is known as 'wrong line running' - ie they are running in the wrong direction, but the signalling will be designed to accommodate this where it is required. You'll find there is a lot more to model railways than just pinning some track down on a board and playing with trains (although that is all some people do, and if it makes them happy, great). Personally, I find learning how the real railway railway operates / or operated is all part of the hobby.

If you have a local retailer, why not use them? For on-line orders, I've used several model shops including Hattons, Rails of Sheffield, Kernow, Derails, Footplate Models, Rainbow Railways and probably one I've forgotten about. I haven't had problems with any, so it's just a case of who is selling what you want. I have to say that I agree with both @ITG and @Harlequin. I just don't think the plan that you have is workable and in my opinion you need to start again with the planning before you buy anything other than rolling stock. My first layout as a teenager had a gradient, possibly about as steep as yours (I had a 6' x 4' baseboard). That layout was quickly scrapped, as I couldn't get anything more that a two coach train up the gradient and when the two coaches were hauled by an 0-4-0T is was a most unrealistic struggle. If this is your first layout, my advice would be to ditch the gradient. If you really must have a gradient, then your mainline will have to start rising as soon as you are under the bridge. There can only be two level sections: under the bridge and over the bridge. The rest of the track needs to be on rising or falling gradients. How good are your carpentry skills to get constant gradients and smooth transitions top and bottom? As has been noted, the two yards are unworkable without a proper run round in each and your crossovers are in the wrong place. They need to be located such that a train leaving your yard can quickly crossover onto the correct track. In the UK trains always drive on the left track (just like when you're driving along the road). Your first post mentioned Liverpool Street as inspiration, which to me implies a largely passenger railway, yet the only operational interest you seem to have is being able to drive what would presumably be a goods train between two yards. You're station wont fit where you think, but presumably you want to have somewhere where a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) will stop. Is this just going to go round and round or does it have a place to go? I realise that the criticism of your plan might be hard, but it's best to sort these issues before you start buying timber.

Optimum is subjective as it depends on your priorities. What is most important: operational interest; fitting in your car; able to be loaded and unloaded by one person; having a continuous run; having a quick set up time? You'll get a different answer depending on how you prioritise such things and what constraints you set. As @Harlequin says, most layouts consist of several modular boards bolted together, so when you attend a model railway exhibition you'll see plenty of transportable layouts, many of which are 00. I understand that one of the layouts being exhibited at Model Rail Scotland in February 2024 is being delivered to the exhibition hall in a 44 tonne articulated truck! That's not 00 and presumably won't meet your thoughts on optimum. I don't think the layout would fit in my house even if I could remove all the internal walls! However, the layout is transportable. There is an obvious trade off between operational interest and set up time. If you want a fast set up time, then the layout has to be small and operationally uninteresting. My project for next year is to build a transportable layout in 00. It will be not far short of 14' in length, but to fit in the boot of my estate car, it will have to break down into five separate boards. In theory, I should be able to set it up on my own, but even with the layout in the back, there should be enough room for three passengers in the car. Loading and unloading will be a bit of a jigsaw puzzle though and I hope I have my measurements and calculations right.

Maybe the wife did too!!

I'm sure a manufacturer could produce an absolutely 'perfect' model of XXXX in its as built condition, but it would still be wrong for my layout set in the summer of the year YYYY because by then it had received three small dents from a collision in January YYYY and the windscreen wipers were worn and the paint was faded or flaking somewhere and therefore the model just doesn't capture how I remember it when I saw it at ZZZZ. I can just image the comments about perfection.

But the caption states that is a G15 (ie one of the 0-4-0 tram locomotives that regularly hauled the passenger trams since 1883). No 129 was built in 1885 and in 1921 was renumbered by the GER to become 0129 (ie it was placed on the duplicates list) to release the number 129 for the new C53 0-6-0 tram that was built in 1921. If that is in fact G15 129 as the captions states, then it must be pre-1921. G15 no 129 / 0129 became 07129 under the LNER, whereas C53 number 129 became 7129 under the LNER.

To be fair to Rapido, they did state that the C53 class were goods trams in their promotional material. However, are you sure that the first time an 0-6-0T was used on a passenger train was in 1927? I don't recall ever reading that. Peter Paye's book has a copy of the working timetable for 1927 (on page 166) and there is a copy of a locomotive and engineman's diagram for 1925 (on page 208). This clearly shows that on a Saturday, shift number 2 involved the same driver and tram operating the 06:30 Goods from Wisbech to Upwell, the 08:15 Passenger service from Upwell to Wisbech, the 09:30 Passenger service from Wisbech to Upwell, the 10:15 Passenger service from Upwell to Wisbech and then the 11:05 Goods from Wisbech to Upwell. That therefore means that in 1925 either the G15 0-4-0 trams were being used on goods services, or the C53 0-6-0 trams were also being used on passenger services. I can't say which way around it was, but I'm happy to assume that there was some crossover between Goods and Passenger (until someone produces a ready to run G15).

I think we all interact with the site differently. Yes, there are various sub-forums and some people may only look at certain areas of the site, but I tend to always use the 'View New Content' button, which means that I see all sections and can comment in all sections as per my varied interests. That means that even if there was a 'No Rivet Counters Allowed' sub-forum I'd still see posts in it, along with posts in the one labelled 'For Rivet Counters Only'. There are a lot of very knowledgeable people who post on this site and who I would take their answer as being correct or certainly well informed (there are others who blow hot air out their ****). However, I tend to find those who are experts are only experts in certain subject areas, whether that be track standards, DCC automation or the the pre-grouping railways. Those who can provide a detailed explanation of various chairs used in the formation of a turnout, tend not to contribute much to the topics about computer control and vice versa. If the criticism of new models is an issue, don't read these threads and either read the ones that suit you, or start your own documenting your own layout. Those who share your philosophy are more likely to follow what you post. If your thread doesn't live up to the standards of some others, then they will most likely ignore it. That's definitely what interests me most as well: understanding how the real railway works. That therefore means understanding enough about the railway and the flow of traffic to be able to create an operable track plan that can be signalled in a prototypical way, built to the standards that I can manage. I'm not overly bothered by small inaccuracies with particular items of rolling stock (although I'd like them to be as accurate as possible), but I appreciate that for some 'modellers', it's not about the railway, but having as accurate a model of their favourite locomotives as possible. They may be able to criticise the window proportions or the number or rivets on a particular model, but chances are if you were to ask them a question about track, signalling, or computer control, they wouldn't have a clue. I think the only advice I can offer @Typeapproval is to just ignore those who are overly critical and don't worry about what others think of you. I'm not an expert on anything, but I do know a little bit about quite a lot and every day is a school day, as I find I pick up little pieces of information on a regular basis (even from those who knit pick).

I've read that before, but it's not 100% definitive. The word 'grey' is used 17 times in that article, but only once is it preceded by the word 'French'. That sentence states that "the locomotives were left in French grey undercoat". It's possible to read that two ways. Simply that the undercoat colour was 'French grey' and therefore the colour the skirts on the tram should be is French grey (which they are not on the Rapido model). However, an undercoat is often lighter than the colour of the top coat and therefore it's possible that in fact the paint used was whatever plain grey paint was used under the French grey top coat on ventilated covered goods wagons. The plain grey 'wartime' livery was introduced as a economy measure. At that time, I believe that paints were mixed on site rather than being ordered in pre-mixed. Therefore, if cost or supply problems was the driver of the change, then it would make more sense to use an achromatic shade (one mixed only from white and black paint) than to mix a chromatic shade. The website link below states that French Gray can be made by tinting white with a little ivory or a drop of black and adding a little carmine or crimson lake and ultramarine. This produces a very slight violet tinge. White tinted with a little ultramarine and Venetian red also gives a good French grey. Celestial blue or cobalt may be used instead of the ultramarine if desired. Another good mixture is made by tinting white lead with one part of black and two parts of orange chrome. https://chestofbooks.com/home-improvement/repairs/painting/Cyclopedia/Gray-Color-Mixing.html If wartime resulted in a shortage of ultramarine paint (hence its use on locomotives being discontinued), then it perhaps seems unlikely that true French grey could continue to be used (assuming it was mixed from white, black, ultramarine and crimson lake). As such, the colour used as an undercoat for French grey may well have omitted both the crimson lake and ultramarine (which would only have been added to the top coat) and as such, there is scope to argue that the correct colour may in fact be either a plain light grey or a shade of ivory white. Unfortunately, unless @rapidoandy or @RapidoCorbs care to enlighten us on their choice for the post-1919 tram, we're not going to know why the model is the colour it is. Perhaps the GER society have minutes that explain a bit more about the reasons for the switch to plain grey. I have to say that I find it interesting that the colours needed to make French grey are ultramarine (as previously used on locomotives) and crimson lake (as latterly used on coaching stock). It perhaps helps to explain their colour pallet both pre- and post-war.

Replace the Titfield version with a model of Henrietta and it's surely a goer!!! :-) Of course there's probably the issue of licencing (I think another manufacturer has a licence for Thomas the Tank Engine models in the UK) and of course the target market for Henrietta is presumably much less affluent than the target market for the Titfield version. A finely detailed model of the prototype may not stand up to the rough handling that Henrietta may get. Shame really.

You're not stuck with one brand. My stock is a mixture of Oxford Rail, Dapol, Hornby, Bachmann, Rapido, Accurascale and Revolution Trains. I probably have more Bachmann stock than any of the others, but it's the latter three that have been getting more of my money these days. The only thing that really matters is that the couplings are compatible and that's not guaranteed even if you were to stick with one brand (particularly if that brand were Hornby). It's better to think about what you want to model and then look at who produces that model. Whilst there is more than one manufacturer that produces certain models, such as the Class 37 and Class 47, for many prototypes, there is only one manufacturer. Best to invest in a number of books that cover the area and the period that interests you. Doing a bit of research can be quite interesting in itself.

But the DOGA Fine Track Standards aren't for RP25/110 wheels https://doubleogauge.com/finerscale-wheels/ I believe that the closest equivalent to DOGA finescale wheels is RP25/88.

I think this one is a Diagram 1 Goods Brake, which is available in a range of scales - https://pregroupingrailways.com/product/pgr7-87-great-eastern-railway-lancashire-derbyshire-and-east-coast-railway-great-central-rrailway-lner-brake-van/

Having purchased one of each pack, I agree that the coaches are great. I particularly like the crimson ones - the livery just seems to suit them. However, with the crimson locomotive, I agree that the grey is much whiter than I was assuming it should be, as I was also expecting it to be French Grey (as per the colour used by Oxford Rail on their Diagram 72 covered goods wagon). Do we know whether the skirts on the trams were actually French Grey? The grey was introduced during the Great War as an economy measure so might these have received just a plain grey primer or photographic grey instead of French Grey? Unfortunately, I find it impossible to tell from looking at photographs whether the bodies are brown or crimson let alone be able to identify the shade of grey.

Well, I'd happy buy one of the earlier 10 ton Diagram 1 Goods Brakes and they may actually have been more common on the W&U than the newer 20 ton version. But, there is a 3D print available for the Diagram 1, but I'm not aware of any model of a Diagram 56 being available, and as far as I'm aware, it was the only GER Goods Brake that was left in BR ownership by the 1950s.

Thanks for the insight. What you're saying is that between the Titfield sales and the sales of those in a fictional BR livery, there is more of us modelling fiction than a prototype. I can imagine the response on here if you were to announce a small four-wheel coach with a £100 + price tag.

For the GER, it would have to be a Diagram 56 20 ton Goods Brake, which were produced between 1908 and 1924. I understand that quite a few of these survived into the 1950s.

Was the Listowel & Ballybunion Railway not in the very first Quirky Poll?