mightbe

As a simple encouragement; I suggest producing a scaled track plan that has some of the features wanted. Only once you have something down can it be edited.

It's not clear whether you want both a terminus and a through station or whether you want either. I can't go through the whole thread at the moment; I see on the first page say you don't want a small branch line with nothing happening, and that your stock list apparently implies some Anglo-French all-period super-railway. These two statements, regardless of how they're combined, do not seem very elucidating. Can you summarize what you want in terms of: -date or period -railway companies of interest -region -urban or rural -degree of compactness -service patterns Failing that, I don't think I can be of much help. If you just want some ideas for track layouts, here are a couple smallish ones I've been fiddling with: Hayes (compact suburban 2-platform terminus) Sandgate branch (short double-tracked branch off the SEML with a terminus and through station) EDIT: I've had a second thought; perhaps name some layouts you would like to emulate Quentin

I don't believe many people consider miles in terms of yards; it's certainly one awkward number leading to another awkward number. At least if you think in terms of feet you have a fairly tangible unit to base things off of, with a single preposterous leap to the next usable unit (the mile). Yards seem a complete waste of a unit to me and I don't know why anyone would use them regularly outside fixed conventions in sporting events.. As someone reared thoroughly on imperial measurements, a room is about the smallest object I can readily consider in terms of meters. There's certainly an upper threshold of 'immediate comprehensibility' too, just as with yards. There is no 'right' answer; humans are perfectly capable of considering objects in whatever units we happen to be accustomed to. It doesn't necessarily make one way of thinking 'inferior' in itself, contrary to what polemicists are fond of saying. Quentin

Hi Newtz, Fantastically atmospheric photography! I too think black might be too black, but I would've suggested a very dark blue or purple--something that looks black but isn't. I've also seen versions of 'go away green' used, which seems to work nicely for both viewing and photography. (Varnished wood strikes me as a bit tacky and dated.) Quentin

Martin, I've seen this (superb) photo many times but it never stuck out to me before; why hadn't the check and wing rails been painted? Quentin

Still, one of those things is protected use* and the other is clearly infringement Quentin *though not for the purposes of this forum, it seems

Misses the point somewhat, Jeff only asked for a photo. Ever heard of fair use/dealing? "...for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, review or criticism, or for the reporting of current events" of a work which has previously been made available to the public "by any means" (i.e., been given reasonable distribution). (In short, as long as you do not literally reproduce the article--its typesetting, design, and layout--in its entirety, then the use would be "fair", or at least eligible to be so. For example, a quoted excerpt from the text is not infringement, but a scan of an entire page is. Likewise, a single photograph published as part of a larger work [the article, in this case] is not infringement even though the photograph is technically intellectual/artistic property it its own right, because it was published as part of a larger work. Given that the photograph was probably done in-house, or within RM in any case, it probably wasn't published separately. These laws protect both originator and user, mind you, not just in the one direction) (In the US almost everything short of a scan of the entire article would be considered fair use.) Quentin

*sigh* Perhaps so, but then there are many posts containing 'wants'; many of which won't realistically be fulfilled on short notice. It's an uncomfortable truth that with time, patience, and reasonable fine motor skills, one doesn't have to wait for Peco Everyone engages with the hobby as they see fit, but doesn't idle wishing on Internet fora seem an odd use of time? I guess I wouldn't immediately think "Oh dear, no xyz. Guess everything's on hold until abc makes one", at least not for something as accessible and straightforward as trackwork.

^Why not just make your own turnouts? Better running and better looking, not to mention years faster than waiting for a RTP version (which will probably still have the same geometry anyway, given Peco's choice here).

Thank you for posting these photos, Llangunllo is one of my favorite layouts and I was dismayed when I saw that the blog had been taken down. Wonderfull modelling. Quentin

And no amount of facting will overcome the inescapable fact that no one* cares, or seems to. *other than those who don't model in 00 such as myself, Martin, and others

I think Martin has gotten far too technical in his approach. It would be convenient if gauge defined a scale, but it does not. Only the scale itself defines a scale, and in the case of 00 the convention happens to exist outside the ruling scale. That is to say that for 00, 16.5mm represents 4'8.5" by fiat and nothing more. Even if everything else is to 4mm/ft there is no formal decree mandating that all measures must be true to the scale. By convention, many things are not to scale or else ' 'approximate' but this is rarely frowned upon by the mainstream (flanges, anyone?). I believe that the vast majority view 16.5mm gauge track in a scale 4mm/ft as representative. Furthermore this convention is based on a longstanding instance of doublethink that no amount of math or logic will dislodge in the near future. Nickel silver is frequently used to represent steel. "This heresy flies in the face of all science and matter. The two alloys are nothing alike on any level, atomic or apparent. In order to overcome this metallurgical fact we must suppose that the former became the prefered material for rails sometime in the 19th century." Best not to get too technical. Quentin

This has been done, but AFAIK this is the only example. Quentin

In their defense, the decision can be justified if you accept that a) molds are expensive and b) one hand would appear more frequently in a British context. To explain the latter, in the trailing direction on a double track main line you'll get the large radius between the up and down lines and the medium radius going off to a siding or goods area. Long coaches etc traverse the large crossover, while the goods trains reversing into the siding will travel through the medium. In any case, tandem turnouts were typically only used where required. 3-throw turnouts were used even more sparingly. Quentin

That first photo: !! I needn't say more! Quentin

I believe that may have been a rule of thumb for some companies, but there are so many exceptions one wonders how seriously it was taken if so. I know Padstow almost had a straight shot from running line to turntable at one time: http://maps.nls.uk/view/105992815 Compare to this later diagram, which is a fair bit safer: http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srq/S3577.htm As an alternative you could get rid of the kickback and put the turntable on the road originally intended as a headshunt, maybe curving it off to the right a bit to make space? (Like I said, this wouldn't impede shunting)

I was with you up to here. It's worth noting that many of the most active participants in this thread are seasoned track builders in their own right, with invaluable knowledge and experience. In any case the discussion has been infinitely more interesting than the press releases themselves. Quentin

The adjustments look good indeed! One minor thing: shunting almost always took place along the running line at such locations, and the headshunt provided is far too short to be of use--you can simply flip the trailing crossover as shown to make it prototypical. I'd also say the small turntable (alone) is much preferable to the engine sheds which graced previous plans. Good change. Quentin EDIT: Just occurred to me that a trap will be needed on the lowest siding

Which 00 is it? There are three? four? principal 00 standards. All of them work when setup correctly, but there are differing requirements on your part that you need to be aware of. Many have fallen into this trap of conflicting standards, especially those who've worked in other gauge/scale combinations where things are a bit more clear-cut. Personally, I think 00-SF and DOGA-Fine are tied for first when it comes to aesthetics, but the latter requires you to change the back-to-back of every. single. wheelset. without any ability to use Peco turnouts in hidden areas. On the other hand, most wheelsets (1980s--) will run with little or no adjustment through 00-SF pointwork, which is entirely cross-compatible with Peco due to having the same check span. (My biases are obvious.) --------------------- I know John Hayfield advertises his bespoke services through Ebay, but no others spring to mind at the moment. Quentin

Sure thing, in no order*: 1. Only offered in one size, i.e. lack of flexibility 2. Peco-esque geometry, leading to an unsightly appearance at the toe (switch) end 3. Unnecessarily large flangeway gaps that you have no control over, due to the design 4. Somewhat basic chair detail, compared to the crispness of Exactoscale Much is explained by the product's age. Aside from fundamental details I wouldn't say they're any "better" than Peco's FB turnouts--IMHO both lie in a sort of DMZ between the feuding realms of "Toy" and "Model". *referring to the plastic based, ex-SMP kits as linked to above, which it must be stressed are still vastly superior to the bespoke copperclad offerings on the same site Quentin

Eek, 2' radius is practically industrial. 3' would look nice, but I think you'd find something like a B7 even better. I would avoid Marcway personally, and suggest getting hold of some C&L components. The website might be closed, but Phil might be accepting mail-order/phone? There are myriad threads on how to build pointwork using them, and it's really not hard if you're careful and methodical. Peco's (controversial) offering will be some months yet, at least. Quentin

Why use Peco's (flawed) geometry? Larger radii, vastly improved flow, and better running characteristics can be had with fully custom pointwork. 00-SF would be better still, and especially if you go the copperclad timbers route it's quite easy to build. Even fully chaired turnouts aren't too difficult. I personally would not hold my breath for the full range, it could take years (assuming the full range is released at all, which isn't certain). I know you say you're reluctant to use templot, but maybe post your diagram on the templot forum asking for help? Quentin

Very nicely done! What's the layout these photos were taken on? (Is it yours?) In any case it looks quite grand. Quentin

You'll have zero issues with 45 mm centers. If you want to eliminate hunting, tighten the gauge to 16.2 mm. (Seriously) Quentin

Given the context, the wiring would've been easier had it been designed more thoughtfully in the first place, because as it is it would be difficult to work the layout properly without full cab control or DCC. Furthermore, it just looks 'difficult to work the layout properly' in the general sense (which I don't mean as a criticism per se). I'd say it helps to hear an honest word, especially if heeding it could save you from future woe and headaches