KTM

Until 1992.

Hi Gary. I'll be watching this one with keen interest. It's uncannily similar in design to my soon-to-be built O gauge SR terminus...which is becoming a through station too! I had no idea ther had been a station at Devils Dyke but it's encouraging to see the protoytipcal layout was very close to the one I had drawn up. I won't have the room to set the layout up for through running at home so it will be operated as a terminus with a line that appears to continue. The idea is to make it a through station so that it can be connected to the fiddle yard at either end or possibly both ends when space allows, such as visiting firends. There is also the possibility of connecting with other O gauge layouts sometime in the future. If possible, I'm going to try to keep the scene more urban that the exposed South Downs, though. It'll help me justify a more intensive service. Are you adding a 3rd rail? Jon

Interesting point. Tight radii was once considered an acceptable compromise when building a model railway. It became 'frowned upon' later on then more recently, it seems to have moved further towards the unnacceptable end of the scale. WhenI first started in model railways, I preferred tight curves because it meant I could fit more in to the space, have a longer straight section for stations and a more operationally interesting layout. It's easy to lose sight of these joyful advantages when trying to build a 'serious; model! Jon

Well, I'm pleased that Peco have brought us the first 'inexpensive' ready-made curves (that I know of) since the Lima days. Test tracks on the dining room floor will be in for Planning Permission soon! Jon

That's a lovely looking station building. Have you made it easily removable for adding the details? I was also intrigued by how short the loco headshunt appears at the end of the platform. I'm struggling with length on mine but yours appears a wee bit shorter than I would have thought you need. Are you intending to run tender engines? Jon

Andy, I like the treatment at the end of the platform. My plan is do do something similar to this with a building & fence to create an alternative vista allowing viewing along the layout from that end. Your photo's really show off those excellent backscenes but do you also have one for this end? It would be a shame to hide such a view! Jon .

Yep! I don't ride competitively but do a bit of (legal!) off-roading where I can. Mainly into road stuff, though. Luckily, the Mrs is into bikes too (she has more than I do) but it'll be a challenge working the toy train (oops) bug into her ! Jon PS I'll be nabbing a few of your ideas, for sure!

A great set of videos there, Andy. Thanks for taking the time. I'll have to re-watch them before I dare have a go myself but I think you hit it on the head with the 'not too much detail' comment. Detail in the backscene just draws you attention to it and in my opinion a flat backscene should go almost unnoticed whilst you are concentrating on the models themselves. I'm not sure how this approach will work with a semi-urban setting, though. From the few exhibitions I've attended, the best backscenes have...well.. faded into to the backscene, if you get my drift! The best I was a hand painted one by an artist modeller (large scale/small size NG layout at Horsham a couple of years ago) which I think included a lake scene. The way it blended into the 3D model was stunning. Perhaps a bigger challenge is how to disguise the fact that the chimney on a low relief terrace house is touching a cloud 2 miles away Jon

Thanks, Chaz & very helpful! I haven't bought the cork yet (nor indeed the baseboard materials) so I'll have a mull over other options that may achieve a ballast shoulder - or maybe I can get away with a flatter ballast level on my plan by fixing the track directly to the baseboard. It may help that I'm going to build in some 'slightly-below-track-level' scenery towards the front of the board to add some level definition, which I feel is quite important on a small layout. Jon

Apologies for my newbie-ness but I do have another question on this subject. I'm going to use Peco track and probably a 9mm thick ply baseboard surface. If I use a compressable underlay, such as cork, with a constant thickness and I use PVA glue for ballast, will it just result in a loss of the sound deadening properties? I don't quite understand how the the drilling of holes in the baseboard will be any worse than without the cork. Does the cork creep over the hole, for example? I was thinking of using this https://modelrailwaysolutions.co.uk/shop/index.php?route=product/product&path=44_64&product_id=246 (no connection, but others have recommended this company for baseboards). Any advice here is appreciated because this is fundamental to getting started with tracklaying! Thanks. Jon

Interesting point, Chaz. I'm about to embark on the construction of a small O gauge layout and was fully intending to use cork because "that's what everyone else does" ! I am very interested to hear about your experience but more importantly, has anyone out there in 7mm land built layouts both with and without cork underlay who can provide a like-for-like comparison? I'm a little concerned about running noise but mine will be a slower-speed shunting layout. I'd rather not be forced to use Copydex either, for the reasons Chaz has mentioned. I would like a shoulder of ballast on the main running lines at least. What are the alternatives to cork, chaps? Jon

Thanks for sharing, Cromptonnut! Many parallels here wuth your story as I started with OO about the same time and I also love the class 33! I remember building a (very temporary) layout on the dining room floor to replicate the Hounslow loop, complete with Waterloo (2 platforms!), Barnes junction (single track!), Richmond, Hounslow & Feltham (terminus-ized) with a functioning triangle junction. those were the days! Looking forward to hearing more. Cheers, Jon.