islandbridgejct

So my follow on question is: will the backscene be acceptable as it is, or will you touch it up to replace the plantation with 2 year old saplings? (Funnily enough, the slight variation in sky colour doesn't bother me at all.) Alan

A 40ft bridge? I'm glad you're modelling the Caley and not the North British. Alan

Very nice work. There really is no comparison between handmade track and the commercial type. Is the rail code 86 bullhead? It looks lighter. Alan

I see the hole is small, but do you need structural steel to support what's above it? You may not, but it would pay to be sure before the flats above being to subside. You've already had one half tone fall on the last layout.... Apart from that, it sounds and looks great. Alan

Jeff, I often wonder when I look at photo backscenes whether the forestry plantations are historically accurate. I believe that by the 1970s the single species tracts of conifers in squared off plantations would be the norm; but when did people begin to plant in this way? 1960s? 1880s? Somewhere in between? Alan

With puns like that, you're lucky I didn't take a chainsaw to them trees - blockin' me view of the trains like that. Can't get a decent photo roun' here no more. Alan

New trees for Christmas? (And a belated happy new year.) Alan [Edited because I went off at half cock again. Sorry.]

Thanks Jeff. I have to say I generally don't read threads where people just plonk something they've bought on a board - not because there's anything wrong with that, but just because it's not what I hope to do when I finally get the finger out, and boot myself up my own... sorry, going off thread there. I subscribe to a number of threads, all of them of modelling I would hope to emulate in due course, including Jason's modelling which, I agree with you, is superb. If I'm not giving enough credit, I'm also trying not to obscure their modelling by wittering on. Being able to take a two minute micro-break from work and look at inspiring modelling is one of the things I like about rmweb. With which, back to t'oul mill. Alan

I use 'likes' as a way of saying I like what you're doing, without cluttering up the thread with posts that say, 'I like what you're doing.' If I have something constructive to say, I'll throw it in as a post, but mostly I'm not doing enough modelling to have views that are worth cluttering up your thread with. (If and when I do, I'll let you know.) I usually avoid the chatty emails, but if somebody says something funny, I'll give that a 'like', or 'agree', or even a 'craftsmanship' for a well crafted comment. 'Informative/Useful', I generally reserve for something that is either genuinely useful or else way more information than I needed (usually something to do with excrement or bodily functions.) If someone makes a comment that I think is correct, I might agree rather than posting the same thing again. I was going to comment on your platforms, but was several days behind and by the time I caught up, you had clearly thought of what it was I was going to say anyway. It can be difficult to keep with the programme, you know. Oh, I have one other rule. I generally don't post 'likes' to Jason's or Tony Wright's threads, as they've both expressed a dislike for them, though I might modify that now that I know which likes Jason likes and which likes he dislikes. I'm afraid one of the problems of the internet is that there are all sorts of strangers like me popping in and commenting on your work, but presumably that's what you post it for. I think it's only polite to post my appreciation, and the 'like' system gives me a way to do that without cluttering up a thread, and without upsetting the crosser modellers.... until now, at any rate. And I will try to come up with useful suggestions. Alan

You can go as EM or P4 as you like - it's still officially* narrow gauge. (* According to HM Govt gauge commission.) Nice work, though.. Alan

Well, I just finished catching up, after several months on and off. Lovely layout. I particularly like the views looking north along the tracks through the station, with the broad sweeping curves. I won't be saying much, as I've done no modelling in the past 12 months, but keep up the good work. Alan

My apologies. I clearly hadn't studied the matter in enough detail, and had missed the following: "One thing you might find handy - especially for a model railway where we can ignore some normally basic safety criteria - is to start by dealing with the locks and releases among the pointwork then move on from there to locking/releases between points and signals. E>G 19 will release 13 (and you could then use 13 to lock 22 BW to get round providing some other locks on 22). The basic principle is that you use locks and releases between point levers to prevent conflicting routes being set up or to ensure that a route can only be set once another point has had to be set in order to create a usable route." That explains the locking between 19, 13 and 22 which was what I was wondering about. By way of excuse, I'm afraid I can do no better than quote a certain gentleman from Barcelona who said: "But I learn, Meester Fawlty, I learn." I'm off now to sit in a corner and feel embarassed. Next time, I'll make sure to read everything properly before I post. :blush: :cry:

May I interject to wonder how the nice man with the handlebar moustache from the BoT ever approved that direct connection from the down main across the branch loop and into the sidings? Was the final slip interlocked with no. 13 (in your diagram) to prevent a move from main to sidings, and ensure that a train could only move from the down main into the loop? I should have thought there'd be a standard double junction with a slip to allow a train from the branch platform to access the up main. What about the reverse direction? How would you stop a train running from the loop or branch platform out onto the down main wrong road? Was it just controlled by signal? I note from the SRS diagram that what you're doing is prototypical. I just thought it wouldn't have been allowed. Alan

Jeff, I'm pretty sure your fiddle yard qualifies as "railway in the landscape" given the amount of fell on top of it. Which is stunning, actually. Alan

Er, yes. Rumbled. Dang. I shall now behave.

Chain drive in an oil bath inside the frames. Just another Bulleid innovation. Eliminates hammer blow to the tracks.

Wouldn't it have twin exhausts, a spoiler on the tender and go faster stripes along the sides?

I'm with Le Corbusier in preferring the Ivatt 4MT. I love the look of the high running plate and open front end. For my money (RMweb still being free) the Ivatt, the 9F and the WD are among the most aesthetically pleasing English locos - but I've got into trouble over that on here before, so I'll say no more. The A4s, A3s and A1s are growing on me, though, and I'm even able to tell the difference between a Thompson, a Peppercorn and a Gresley design now, so your efforts are paying off. If you keep at it, you may convert me yet. What I really wanted to post about was that poor old lady stuck out there with the spotters at the end of the down platform. Sonny, that hairdo cost me 2 bob and I'm not going to stand about in the open waiting for some steam engine to blow off beside me and dowse it. Nor am I going to expose it to the coal dust in that drafty barn of yours further down the platform. Kindly return me to the ladies' waiting room immediately, where, until my train is due, I can sit comfortably with my friends. I have no interest whatsoever in collecting locomotive numbers or whatever it is you young men get up to at the end of that platform of yours. Before I leave, I will put on my headscarf, which should never have been removed, and I have a good mind to call the constabulary on you. Sorry, but each time I see her there, I think you'd be more likely to see the Duchess of Devonshire or King George. The boys and the wheeltapper are fine. As ever, keep up the good work. Alan

Hello. Last time I looked at this thread, it was just blockwork. Didn't subscribe because I follow too many threads, and now I come back and you've built a full layout. And a very nice piece of modelling it is too. Alan

Do you know, I'm not sure if I was serious either. I can't comment on the economics of the Wee Donegal, but I don't think anyone else ever understood them either. If you put a hump at one end of the yard, you could use it for gravity shunting. (It's Saturday evening - now I'm definitely not being serious. Carry on and pay no heed.) Alan

Henry T. Forbes* suggests that you might be able to use a single outlet on the Mini Panels to drive the motors to set a road for both the Paddington and Penzance yards at the same time - eg, outlet 2 drives the points to access storage road 2 in both Paddington and Penzance. Provided you kept the access to the yards independent, you could set roads 2 to 13 in both yards in this way. You'd have to remember not to try to set a road in Penzance while you had a train moving in or out of Paddinton though, to avoid the carnage. It's not too late to cancel that nice PH Box .... Alan * Chief engineer of the CDRJC and a noted master of economy / money saver / skinflint (delete as preferred.) By the time he had finished saving money, the railway was so run down it had to be closed, but only about 3 or 4 years before it would have been anyway. There may be a cautionary tale here, but I'm not clever enough to figure it out.

I was struck by this line: "Elko Station relocated to Chanbrook. This was a Crowsnest B type station that was built from a kit." What scale is it to? It looks very realistic. Sorry. It's warm here so I don't need my coat. Gone already. Alan

Very nice indeed! I agree with you about the 1900 scene. My own stalled project is GSWR set in 1910 for similar reasons. I like colourful locos - though CIE's black locos and green coaches are probably more colourful than the MGWR's green locos and brown coaches, given that there are usually more coaches than locos on a train. In the end, the clincher for me was that in 1910 there were three to 5 trains a day on all lines, rather than the one a day and don't dream of trying to go and come back in the same day approach that characterised the 1950s when many lines were on their last legs: I couldn't take the nostalgia of that! Opinions about Inchicore vary, and those are just my opinions. Morton rebuilt more locos than any of the other CMEs, and he was a Broadstone man, so I think the honours are probably shared. I like your Est C. It reminds me of Lison in La Bete Humaine (though I know that was either a Nord or Ouest engine). Keep up the good work. Alan

I like that a lot. The 2-4-0 subsequently became a G2 numbered in the 650s and got Inchicore boiler, superheater, extended smokebox and a more modern cab. She also ended up in dark grey. By way of comparison, she's in her later guise at post 11 of this thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/96349-arigna-town/ - Another lovely model, but I think she looks better in green livery with the fly-away cab as you have modelled her. I'm confined to armchair modelling for the moment - so would love to see more. By the way, I think your platform may be a touch too long for some of the stations on the Westport line! Alan

Lovely modelling. I'm going to lurk, in the hope of seeing some more of that very nice Midland stock, and Bat and the Ivatt tank, having a particular interest in that kind of thing. (I can't actually read the nameplate on the J26, but it looks like one of the shorter ones: is it Bat, Fly, Wasp, or one of the others?) Alan