islandbridgejct

This thread was referenced in Tony Wright's thread. You may have seen it, but it immediately made me think of the trackwork on Quai 87: http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/crrnjbxt.html Food for thought, perhaps. There's also a link in his thread to a video of a model of it. The trackwork is fantastic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pErgphjRECo I'm probably very late to the party on this, and I imagine it's been discussed before. If not, well, it blew my socks off. Alan

Sorry, are they orbiting the layout using the roundy-roundy principle?

I've just been going back over the photos on the past few pages. The sheer beauty of this railway takes my breath away. I love the balance you have achieved between the bright greens of the countryside and the muted red of the locos and rolling stock. And the light tones of the track and buildings and the majestic skies mean that everything looks right together. The layout is a true work of art and an inspiration. Alan

Got wun rong?

Hi Gordon, I'm a bit concerned about that 32" radius on your inner storage roads - not that I think they won't work, but that, based on past experience, I'm afraid you will later cite it as one of a number of compromises* as a result of which the design no longer satisfies you. I don't think I could go through another episode of you ripping everything up. (Sorry.) The argument against the 32" radius, I think, is this: you suggest you might use it for goods trains which will have short wagons. However, you're likely to want to have those trains pulled by long wheelbase steam engines, a WD, 9F or 2-8-0. These may object to the tight radii. Even the larger 6 coupled engines might object to those radii. You will then feel that only diesel stock can use the tighter roads. I wonder would it be possible to relax the radii by taking the turnoff from a different point, and either shorten or lengthen the loops in question (or lose them altogether, or make them single-ended if you have to). Alternatively, if you decide you're happy** with them, I'll have to ask the subscribers to this thread to gang up on you and refuse to allow you to scrap this build until everything is completed. (The current scheme is turning into a really layout design master class. Thanks.) Alan * No other compromises detected in this build yet. ** Actually really happy with no complaints, quibbles, worries, reservations or unease whatsoever.

You've really brought that area together very nicely. An approach for me to remember for future use.

Hi Jeff, Some questions for you about your new cutting: Is it going to be a rock cutting? If not, is it too steep for a grassy embankment to support itself? (It looks too steep from the photos.) You seem to get ridges in the scenery at the height of the join in each layer of insulation board. Will you be disguising these with scenery or adding more plaster bandage to build them up so that they do not all appear to occur at the same level? Is your roadway a bit wide for an accommodation crossing? Would a farmer have built a roadway like this right at the base of a fell? (I'm not suggesting answers to any of these questions, but I hope asking them helps with your rationale for this corner of the layout so that it meets your standards.) Best wishes, Alan (A different Alan - we get everywhere.)

Dave's linked photo shows that (and is useful to me too, thanks!) I don't know when the double brake either side became standard in GB. I think I read somewhere that there was legislation requiring it, some time between 1890 and 1920 which is probably too long a time period to be of any use to you. I'd suspect it was pre-1903 as the 1903 RCH standard wagons I've seen on the web seem to have 2 brake shoes either side. (Warning - don't trust anything I say too much: it's mostly surmise, conjecture and google.)

Interesting thread, thanks. One to add to the followed list. I think Mark Tatlow's Glenmutchkin is based on the same period, but a bit further north. Single shoe brakes on the LNWR interest me: that D4 / D9 is a ringer for a standard GS&WR open (probably not surprising, the North Western owned much of the stock of the Irish company, and there were other similarities) so the Ratio 4-plank could be a good kit for me to convert. Alan

Um, given that P87 runs on 16.5mm gauge while P4 runs on approximately 18.82mm*, does it matter? (* 21mm in my case - though runs is probably stretching things.)

Ah, I think I know the answer to this one: it's 44.67mm centres, so it's measured from the centre line of one track to the centre line of the other, so it's a separation envelope based on vehicle width, regardless of your track gauge (so long as your gauge is not more than 22.335mm!) (Edit to smack myself - so long as your gauge is not more than 44.67mm you should be ok.)

Oh dear. Does Mrs D. know? Did I say something I shouldn't have? I'm trying to remember what it was now. Pardon me.

I bet you got some looks shopping for those. Just wondering if this is the sort of post the 'report' button is for; but definitely looking forward to seeing the results. Does this make me a ? Alan

One of the best things about rmweb is getting to see a layout as it's being built. The level of planning here is very high, and promises great things for the future. Good luck, and sign me up for the ride! (It's alright. I'll sign myself up.) Alan

Reminds me very much of Chufnell Regis. Perhaps a Punch and Judy show on the beach, an American millionaire and his daughter, or Old Bogey stalking around the corner? You're not making this for a Mr Wooster, are you?

I'm sorry, but I really must object to this. It's no use complaining about engines appearing too frequently when there's only one rake of wagons for them to pull each way and it keeps on appearing. What about the fact that the same truck appears ten times as often? No more engines for you until you have at least four trains for each engine, and leave them at either end of the line to be unloaded or reloaded before they make their return appearance. Sorry, but fair's fair. I demand parity of esteem for mineral wagons! Support trucks' rights! Alan

Oo arrr, 'e be down t'ol' 'arbour, in they concrete wellington boots. (Sorry, should that be 'oo arrr', 'ey up', or 'bah gum'? Having a problem with my dialects today.) Lovely work, as ever.

Nothing amazing about it. It's a shunting puzzle. We all love shunting puzzles. My suggestion from this lunchtime is: if you don't want storage loops under the centre board (and maybe you do), you could have dead end ones under the board on plan left, accessed from the return loop ( through a 180 curve at plan bottom, left). Presumably trains would have to back out and continue on their way after a certain time. If you were worried about derailments while reversing, you could have a little tank engine stored on a stub end siding at the top end of the return loop (plan top, right) to go in and pull it out, to be followed by the train engine which would have uncoupled on arrival. That might make an interesting little piece of shunting and maybe put the storage somewhere better. Just by twopence worth. Alan [Edit: not 'by', 'my'. Can't spell any more. Can't type.]

Sorry, Gordon. I thought you were concerned about the amount of variation in height, rather than the difficulty of making the two ends join up. I'd probably use a piece of string and a small spirit level stretched from one side of the room to various other points to establish a base height at different points, but only because I wouldn't know how to go about it mathematically or logically, and it would no doubt be considerably less accurate. Please keep on explaining - I'm storing up knowledge from threads like yours for the day I can get building again. Alan

Hi Gordon, 64' = 19392mm (approx! ie 303 x 64) So in a run of 19392mm you have a variation in gradient of 20mm max. 20mm variation in 19392mm = 1:969.6 Effectively, your variation is a gradient of 1:1000, transforming your 1:100 into a 1:100.1 or 1:99.9 depending, so I would suggest (armchair thinking here!) that it is practically insignificant and of no concern. You are probably engineering your baseboards to a standard the prototype does not meet. Whilst perfection is nice to aim for, it may not always be desirable, and I fear you might be in danger of putting yourself off again. Somebody more practical than I am may be able to confirm that, at this level of accuracy, you really have nothing to worry about, and should just make sure there are no major deviations within your 19,392mm of main line. If you stand in Sallins station looking towards Cork, the line is dead straight for a considerable distance. An approaching train actually disappears at one point into a hollow before reappearing much closer to you. It's quite something to watch, but that's Irish bogs for you. If this sort of roller coaster bothers you, slap a speed restriction on it, but it is not unprototypical, and is unlikely to affect performance significantly. (Somebody tell me if I've got my maths wrong on this.) Alan

Oh dear. I hope you've agreed running powers over Great Western metals. Alan

Ah-hah! It all becomes clear now - the repeated redesigns, the new benchwork, the itching to get back downstairs and cut some more exquisitely machined wood. You're suffering from mechanical capture. Throw it all out and buy a hand saw. I'm afraid it's the only way. (Sorry.)

Aha, I think you could be onto a new condition there: GALS, or Gordon and Larry Syndrome; as in, "He's got GALS", or "I've been diagnosed with a mild case of GALS." (I've got SOA / DBA myself.)

Was the GCR actually laid with code 100 in OO gauge?

That's a shame but probably not entirely unexpected. Probably better to know now than have a trip to court with the judge telling you that, in France, a train is for [yada, yada, yada]