islandbridgejct

There's a layout you can use if you need to Bacup.

Looks like a lot of fun. Alan

I'm a bit taken aback by that. I think all I can do is wish you good health and happy modelling. Build something you'll enjoy. Alan

Just don't let it loose on your baseboards.

Clive, I can't help thinking you need a double scissors crossover from one set of lines to the other, rather than just the single one, at least if the two companies plan on exchanging traffic. Track might get too complex though. (Bear in mind that I know even less than Harlequin says he does.) Alan

Hello, I don't think you can use the chemicals siding as the headshunt for the engine shed, even in those halcyon pre-health and safety days. Maybe if you reversed them, and used the chemical siding as the engine shed, and the engine shed roads as the chemical sidings. Then you could just model the first few feet of the engine shed, and leave a loco sitting outside it where it could be seen. Or leave the shed out altogether: it's just a reason to have a regular branchline engine that works everything in and out - four times a day it heads up to the junction for passengers with the same one or two carriages, and once a day it brings home the goods. Much better to see what the lads at the junction have decided to put on the branch train today, particularly if the junction has a big depot for its own traffic and could send you anything. Once you extend the sidings back in front of the fiddle yard, you need a longer headshunt to work traffic into and out of them. If you liked fancy trackwork, you could make the loop into the headshunt, and cut across the goods yard lead with a diamond crossing. (Mind you, this is EM, so you may prefer fewer engines and simpler trackwork.) Those are just ideas, mind. Go ahead and build it exactly the way you see it in your mind's eye. It'll be fab. Alan

Pah! A stiff breeze was all, and they shut down the whole country for it. (Mind you, there were still 3 killed, so probably just as well.) I spent the afternoon hoping the neighbour's tree, that blocks our sunlight on summer evenings, would do the decent thing and keel over, but no joy there. Alan

Intriguing. I do like a nice bit of a mystery. Alan

I’ll add my voice to the acclaim. I’m delighted that you’re on the mend, and wish you hours of pleasure with your wonderful railway. (If you get some unusual ‘agree’ ratings from me, I’m posting on the iPad and trying to hit l’like’ with my thumb. Sorry.) Alan

Hello, Jeff, May I comment on that wall beside the siding please? It is clear that the land on the far side is lower, and does not need a retaining wall to hold it up. The wall could therefore only be necessary as a view blocker, for instance if somebody's ancestral pile would otherwise be overlooked by the railway. A few complex roofs on the backscene, sticking up above the top of the wall, might provide some justification. This might also account for the different - and clearly more expensive - stonework from all the other walls. However, it is also likely that the lack of support on the far side (as the land falls away) would make the wall unstable and lead it to collapse. So could I suggest instead that a wire fence and some long grass, together with a few bushes, might provide a sufficient visual break, with views out across the surrounding countryside / backscene? The other wall looks very tasty. Alan

The track work really is fantastic. I wonder would you mind posting a picture of the coffee jar lid? I’m trying to visualize it and how it works. Alan

I think the issue with the Maryborough backscene may be that it is mounted too high to look right with an eye-level shot from the front of the layout. It probably looks fine if the layout is viewed from a foot or two above baseboard level. In reality, you see much more of what is behind if you raise your viewing level, and much less if you lower it. Hence, a road seen from above will look wider than a road scene from a low level. Backscenes cannot compensate for the changed viewing height. Model backscenes tend to work best where there are fields and rising hills behind the layout, as these are more forgiving. Jerry Clifford's layouts on here are excellent examples. For a complete contrast, and a superb blending of a flat background marsh scene, take a look at Tollesbury Quay in MRJ 246 where the absence of any detail in the background allows the eye to assume greater distance or a rise or fall in ground level. Pointwork is progressing well! Alan

Imagine if Dr Beeching could have scrapped the villages as well as their railway. Such an orderly way to proceed. What would poor Mr Betjeman have said?

I've been reading this thread and 'The End of the Line' during my breaks over the past few days and adding 'craftmanship' comments along the way. May I say I don't believe I've ever seen modelling of a higher standard, and the videos give an even clearer idea of the excellence of every detail. Things I particularly like are the walking gatekeeper, the simplicity of the wagon tippler on End of the Line, the stormy backscene, and the patina on the Garrett paintwork - apart of course from the engineering brilliance of the various trucks. This is one of those layouts (or two) that really raise the bar on what it is possible to achieve. Thank you for sharing it. Alan

Derek, I'm delighted to hear you're on the mend. All I have is a broken leg, but it enables me to imagine the multiples of that pain that you must be going through. Take care and take it easy, and I look forward to hearing what ideas you've had. Alan

Attempting to be constructive after my excited outburst above, you could perhaps do what some others on this thread and elsewhere do, and build a 'Carrog rebuilt' at standing height above the existing layout. You could use casettes to move stock from the lower fiddle yard to the upper and vice versa. That way you could have the best of Carrog as it is, and Carrog as you would like to imagine it. (I'm always a bit afraid of giving offence, and acutely conscious of my own paltry modelling output. If I'm not being helpful, just send me a pm and I'll desist. I'm a great admirer of the quality and speed of your modelling, and the beautiful lustrous paint finish on your coaches - so much more beautiful than the dull maroons and crimson / creams of rtr paint jobs. Best wishes.) Alan

Excited? Me?

As a counter-thought (and without any criticism of your view, Rich) I quite like the fact that a big hand has to come along and do something that would be done by hand in reality. I am awe-struck by the engineering skills that can design and build a working tippler like this. Alan

I did note one or two lines leading to a cliff edge alright. Alan

I don't mind it not being Carrog. I only mind when you decide to rip it up because it's no longer Carrog. And of course, it's mind over matter time: what I mind doesn't matter. I think a goods yard is an excellent idea and a junction would be even better. I think I'm going to give myself a pat on the back for figuring out what the breach of regulations was, though. Have fun with the modifications. Alan

I used to love the periods of nothing happening when I was trainspotting. Wandering along the platform, looking at the weeds, doing a sketch of the waiting shelter. Loads of anticipation, looking up the line. Was that a loco in the distance to the north - a deeper dot in the haze? Then the outline of a loco becoming clear, rocking a bit if it was going fast, then thundering through with 20 containers or 12 ore wagons behind, and then the silence descending again. Photos of nothing happening are GOOD. Alan

Just an evil thought... Suppose the GWR [was] wanted to acquire the Denbigh, Ruthin and Corwen, and LNWR management dropped the ball, and as a result the junction was set at Carrog rather than Corwen, with a long run in on parallel single tracks. The curve of the line coming into Corwen from Denbigh suggests this as a possibility. Or perhaps the Denbigh company wanted access to the slate wharf west of Carrog, and preferred to build with a junction at Carrog. Either way, Carrog could become a junction, with a service from Rhyl working in, and whatever interchange facilities you wanted. You already have 2 lines coming in under the bridge, so they could be your twin single lines, and you could run them all the way around to your fiddle yard, so you wouldn't need any change at that end. You couldn't provide a bay platform then for the Denbigh / Rhul service to terminate, but you could run it through and build a siding for it at the east end of the station. That would work as a prototypical arrangement on this side of the Irish Sea, but the GWR was a proper railway and might have frowned on the arrangement. But then, of course, it would no longer be Carrog, and you'd have to scrap it all, so let's pretend I never even mentioned it. Alan [Edited for poor editing. Sorry.]

I will, on reflection, dip my toe into the debate on internet sales. I think the two sides of the debate are both correct, and can be reconciled. I accept that many kit makers are providing something of a service as a sideline, and may not want all their time taken up in selling and providing after sales service, and I note Atso's unpleasant experience of trying to make and sell a kit; but I also accept the argument that promotion and sales over the internet will improve the hobby by making parts known to people and making it easier for them to obtain them. From my own experience, use of Paypal or credit card to buy from the UK has become almost obligatory as the banks try to discourage us from buying sterling drafts or even writing cheques. (Why, oh why, could the UK not have signed up for the euro? - Sorry, that's strictly tongue in cheek.) I think it should be possible to reconcile these two positions if somebody offered to fulfil a middle man role of operating a website to accept orders, take payment, pass them on, and deal with after sales queries. I have in mind a model shop or online model rail retailer (Eileen's or Wizard or C&L for instance all have a strong web presence) that already has an expertise and could offer it for a proportion of the sale cost, thereby freeing up the manufacturer to do what he enjoys. Of course, there would be a need for trust and communication in the relationship between manufacturer and middle man, but that should be manageable with good will on both sides. Indeed, the Scalefour Society already provides this facility for a number of retailers, so the commercial model should not be too hard to put in place. Perhaps some member of this forum might like to take up the idea and run with it. Two pence worth now fully exhausted. I will cease and desist. Alan

One possible reason why some skies may not work would be if the colour temperature of the layout is different from that indicated by the sky. Say if the light on the layout was equivalent to an overcast day or evening, but the sky was sunny and midday. Would brightness controls in your software work on this? Another possibility would be if the sun in the sky is from the left and the sun in the photo is from the right. There is probably a command to flip the sky photo 180 degrees that might help. Maybe. Or you could just leave out the shopping and give us the pics. My imagination can process them just fine. Alan

I really like the tight crop, and the amount going on in it. Alan