TonyMay

But the issue for a model is the hugh standard N gauge coupling probe is right where the object deflector should be. What would be great is if Farish could have a choice of slot out coupling or dead cow deflectors.

So... how can I do that at home? Let's say I want to renumber something...

I mean, how do they do the lining (in particular, get it straight) and a generally even finish, on a production line? Is it all done by computers?

What about the facing turnout? Was it added by BR? Is that prototypical?

Well there is usually a section called "models" - in an article - if it isn't there it's missing. I was going to talk about photos of the real thing. In the thread below: Wikimedia Commons could be a depository for these. A lot of photos from Ben Brooksbank came via Geograph for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Ben_Brooksbank A word about quality again. I realise that there are lots photos that have no technical merit whatsoever in terms of composition or exposure, e.g. of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LMS_46115_Passing_through_Clapham.jpg - and the admins refuse to delete them on the basis of quality. Obviously photos that are of historical interest should be excepted from this - it is better to have a poor quality box brownie photo than no photo whatsoever. Again, licensing applies.

Hi, I want to start a thread to discuss photos for Wikipedia. I'm sure you know what Wikipedia is, if you don't look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Using_Wikipedia_as_a_research_tool I'm interested in getting better quality photos in Wikipedia articles. Since this is RMweb, I'd like to start with photos of models. So if you go to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Patriot_Class#Models there should be a photo of an RTR Hornby or Bachmann model - it doesn't really matter so much which. By way of example, the photos from Hattons are good: https://www.hattons.co.uk/32152/Hornby_R2936_Patriot_Class_4_6_0_5532_Illustrious_in_LMS_Crimson_Railroad_Range_/StockDetail.aspx Clean white background, no clutter, everything in focus. A simple ruler is a good idea, and probably better than a 50p piece. The main point is though that it's illustrative. Locos, stock, in boxes are also illustrative. To do this I'm going to ask you to set up a small home studio. So you'll need a white background, white even lighting, narrow aperture - big depth of field, so that means medium length exposure which in turn means camera on a tripod to avoid shake. To get narrow aperture you're going to need a dSLR (or at least a decent bridge camera that can control aperture), and a lens that has good optics - so not too much barrel distortion and good semi-macro optics. Barrel distortion can be fixed to a degree in photoshop, but post-processing should be relatively straightforward and not change anything about the object being photographed. To show you some that are less good: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bachmann_Class_4_tank_locomotive.jpg - shallow dof, background clutter, yellow lighting. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bachmann_LNER_K3.jpg - shallow dof, background clutter, yellow lighting. Please only upload decent quality photos. Technically poor quality photos look ugly and waste everyone's time. I know most of the examples on the wiki do not meet these standards, but I'm asking for quality for a reason. Ideally, I think they should be in "as bought from the manufacturer form" - so post-production modifications such as weathering aren't ideal. You can upload photos here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome The original author retains copyright but obviously the photos have to be released on licence for others to use, including commercial use, and edit. (I'll talk about prototype photos in another post on this thread later).

What about HO scale, with 12mm gauge?

From the top?

Well this started off as a yard plan, and has now become a double tracked BLT, and is potentially headed towards minories. I do like the original specification though - for a yard, not including passenger provisions.

Some of the pointwork seems decidedly unorthodox. But can you please provide a fuller picture of the design (the left hand end appears to be missing), and confirm that the cassette FY is on the right as we look at it (?)

Turntables tend to dominate the space but if you can find a smaller GWR design. If it is a legacy turntable, how about making it like St Blazey, where the shed can only be accessed via the turntable, giving a more explicit reason for its continued existence? Also how about reducing the double track main line to single track? And/or removing the station platforms? The station can be just along the road a bit, it doesn't have to be on scene. Both would give you a little more room, particularly considering how much space the turntable is going to take up.

The turntable implies a legacy GWR shed that has been retained to service diesels. By the 1980s-1990s most steam era turntables had been removed unless they were somehow necessary either to operate the site efficiently, or because stock needed turning. Could the turntable be removed? There is a facing point on the main line which leads straight into the depot.

I much prefer the idea of having two roads into the layout. It allows one to perform one function, while the other performs an alternative. An additional option would to have the back road and sidings slightly raised, giving different levels.

Both "Stella" and "Charlotte" are terrible names for locos.

Hang on a minute, let's go back a step. Is this to be viewed and operated from the inside? With the top left bit as the FY?

I have wondered about a layout concept of "X through the ages", which would be 2 or 3 models of the same location but set in different times, illustrating changes over those times. Maybe for example one layout set in the 1890s, another in the 1950s and finally one set in the 2010s. The 1890s one would feature small period steam engines, a busy goods yard with wagonload freight, and semaphores galore; the one from the 1950s mostly steam and a few diesels, the goods yard still in use albeit half empty, and 1930s style signalling; the one from the 2010s garishly-vinyled boxes on wheels, no pointwork, a goods yard full of cars, and modern colour light signals. The point would be to illustrate changes over the timeframe.

Did it have a bus on a bridge?

Would the siding have been rope shunted?

Perhaps it's just a minor issue, but where have I seen something like that before?

And we haven't really talked too much about organising the fiddle yard. Don't overlook FY design. It's more important than the on-scene track as it defines what you can do with the on-scene track. With 2 tracks, you can have one upside and one downside. With four tracks, it depends on whether the tracks are up-up-down-down or up-down-up-down. UUDD is slightly easier to organise but UDUD is a bit tricky. With 4 tracks you're immediately halving the FY: track ratio, I expect only about 2 FY roads per line will be possible. Quad track is best suited to spacious club layouts.

If you want to just play trains, why not go for complete whimsy? I'm thinking Thomas - the grandkids will love it. The models are fairly robust and can be picked up cheaply.

Trying to stick something atop the FY isn't a good idea if you need to fiddle.

Have you thought about N gauge- it should give you enough space.

I think you're trying to cram too much into this. Regarding the 6 operators, do you have 5 friends who are interested in enough to play trains with you? What if operator 1 needs a wee? Does everyone have to leave the shed in order for him to go to the bathroom? Some of the trackwork could be tidied up a little bit to provide more flow. Dropping the second main line would free up lots of space, a straightforward double track terminus should be possible in this space without having to cram in as much track as possible into every corner.

In the space available, double track is always going to be more space-effective than quadruple track - not only for on-scene design features (e.g. station) but also for a more effective, better organised fiddle yard.