mightbe

Relatively little has changed though it must be said that the realignment of the top goods track makes a large (positive) impact. I agree; the mill would be a natural viewblock. (I don't see a signal box anywhere?)

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand "exhibition culture" but why on God's green earth would you let concerns about 'entertainment value' or Joe Public's ignorant tastes compromise the layout? It looks much better than it did, and the vast majority of the real railway is plain line in open country. The most recent plan breathes. Remember that at locations like this an hour or more might pass between trains. The last thing I would want to see is a "busy" BLT with a train every 10 minutes, or worse, two locomotives on scene at one time. I say let the layout exist within the landscape - don't let the layout define the landscape as such. The canal scene sounded great! Seeing as you're doing 00-SF, I would say it's time to fire up templot and work with some real turnouts Quentin

Looks like a bit too much track for my taste, especially with it sprawling all over in the back. I would repeat the suggestion that an MPD at this location is at best unnecessary - few branch termini had them, as workings were generally made from the (somewhat more important) junction end. Personally, before trying to reimagine anything, I would import an OS map and recreate the track layout precisely. This step gives a better impression of scale and shows how Dursley (or any location) functioned, and then you can revise the layout directly on top of the original. The top-down view is often misleading - it's not how we typically see trackwork, so I like to pick up my laptop and stare from all sorts of ostensibly eccentric angles. In actuality I'm just looking at the plan as I would a real layout. (Because it mimics how we usually see real trackwork, I favor end-on views or similar.) It smooths the mental transition from 2D to 3D and helps me visualize balance and flow. I might suggest looking over track plans of layouts you like and seeing how yours compare, especially from the low/end-on angles I mentioned. I find it indispensable when refining a layout idea. Quentin

I use blu-tack or similar to hold things down. Always helps to have extra rail that can be trimmed and filed back to the right place. Quentin

I shall await the chorus of ignorant naysayers. Quentin

A majority of the 'survivors' were upgraded to being partially interlaced, like those in your link (save for the first photo). (In any case 12" timbers were used under the switch) Re sleeper sizes: 8'6" sleepers were introduced around WWI and sleepers have greater longevity than rails on running lines--secondhand ones would not have appeared for several decades. The rough and ready way you've laid them is spot-on for an industrial look, it's just just the systematic mixing looks off. I expect that outside the odd replacement sections would be relaid in one go, thus leaving a patchwork more than a general mélange. In any case a mix of flatbottom and bullhead might be more typical, with the possibility of straight-cut loose heel switches (the modern REA A/B/C etc were not introduced until 1923 and were slow to appear). The full stores is only open to members. Quentin

I would be wary of such a compromise at this stage. In my experience, a compromise or abrupt change of plan equals dissatisfaction and eventual restart. Interlaced turnouts stand out visually and I can't recall many photos of them that weren't taken during the pre-grouping. Obviously some lasted quite a while but certainly a rarity. Even more so a collection them in one place. 12" timbers = 4mm x (whatever depth you've chosen, probably .8mm. Available direct from the Society Stores, 14 GBP for an A4 sized sheet. Rail is also available, at a good price I might add! Quentin

Something you can do is to add a headshunt for the carriage sidings below the throat. I suggest you check out Howard Bolton's phenomenal version of Minories for inspiration. Easily found in the NAG section of the S4 forum, and I have a link to a video to boot: (Layout is Howard's, but the scratchbuilt 4Sub is Colin Parks'. Note the working surface point rodding.) Quentin

I'm not sure I have great eyesight, but I do know what kinds of things to look for I think everyone can see that there are only three timbers underneath the check rails, but the bigger problem is actually corollary. The check rails begin (in the facing direction) at the knuckle, which means their functionality is limited in that direction. Typically, check rails begin some distance in advance of the knuckle, often a full timber, so as to better control the wheels through the common crossing. Because there isn't any protection until the point where there's the greatest risk of mistracking, derailing, etc. that makes frog-bump very likely. Users of Peco Streamline may be familiar with the slight break in the sound as a wagon is propelled through a common crossing. This is what is known as frog-bump and it is typically the flange striking the tip of the V, or sometimes the entire wheel briefly bottoming-out in the knuckle. It is almost always symptomatic of an underlying problem, be it a mismatch of standards or insufficient protection from check rails. In reality, there should be no such 'break'--the wheels should always be fully supported and the passage of a wheelset not discernibly different from how it would be on plain track. Martin Wynne has also commented on the short check rails having functional ramifications. He has proposed this is a 'cheat' to let long wheelbase vehicles traverse these tight radii. I'm not entirely convinced that that's the reason, but it may well be the effect. In any case it is an error, deliberate or otherwise. Quentin

I model in P4. And yes, I think Peco should minimize the compromises which they clearly didn't do if that photo is to be believed. The check rails look ghastly. On the other hand, equalized timbering is very common in every instance but a crossover--but with the point being so tiny I can see why people would be reluctant to accept it in a mainline setting. Quentin

(Taking the image to be representative of the final product) Well, it seems that Peco has decided to leave the egregious error mentioned earlier--there are only 3 timbers under the check rails. Had they scaled-down their 0-gauge turnouts there would've been 4, which is at least a prototypically accurate number for some modellers. Crossovers will look rather peculiar, though I'm somewhat pleased to see the bent timber arrangement is gone. It's clear that both newcomers to 00-bullhead have made regrettable decisions, between stainless steel rail and now this. Quentin

I may have missed where you said this, but are you building the pointwork yourself? Even if you're not in the general sense, there's a C&L kit for a B6/B8 tandem--both handings are available, and you can incorporate them into the Anyrail design directly, from the C&L 00 library. The common crossings are all built for you and the blades are milled. It's simply a matter of sticking the chairs to the sleepers with butanone. You would need to buy 00-SF gauges for it to work with unmodified stock, as the ones optionally included (DOGA-Fine) will do you no good. Luckily, C&L also sells the gauges for 00-SF. (A 15.2mm check gauge and a 16.2mm regular gauge would be required.) By all accounts these kits are a painless path to finescale track--ideal for a beginner. EDIT: your image isn't small, it's just been reduced for webview. Click on it. Quentin

Hi, I hadn't seen this thread until today, but just reading the last few posts I noticed the discussion on three-way turnouts. I'm not sure symmetric/asymmetric were ever terms used by the PW gang; as you'll see below, things can get complicated! There were two broad categorizations: A) Tandem turnouts are effectively two standard turnouts that have been interlaced, with switches (a switch is a set of points) that have been staggered. Of these, there are two types: both switches are along the main road in type 1, and for type 2 the second switch is in the diverging road of the first. The most common of all three-way turnouts was a type 1 tandem turnout; examples include the two you found at Banff and Peterborough. The Peco code 75 three-way is also an example. B) Three-throw turnouts are not made from standard components--the two switches aren't staggered, and the points themselves are planed differently. I'm told these are notoriously difficult to build properly, though the Peco code 100 is an off-the-shelf example. Here are some pictures to illustrate (all from google images): Type 1 tandem, main road in center (switches of opposite hand) Type 1 tandem, switches of the same hand (apologies for the wiring diagram, I was having trouble finding a good picture) A rather eccentric example (!) but still a type 2 tandem, as the second switch is on the diverging route of the first. Note the interlaced timbering and the continuous check rail along that nasty curve. A three-throw turnout with switches of the same hand. And finally, a three-throw turnout with switches of opposite hands. I saw a recommendation for Marcway above. I would categorically not recommend it, having seen the product and how it is constructed. If you want something other than Peco, you could do a lot worse than commissioning from fellow RMWeb member 'Hayfield' Quentin

I wouldn't say it's flat at all--you can clearly see shoulders and the fact that only the running lines are ballasted (note the size difference). The infill is ash. Aside from the flatness the scene as depicted in the model is a good likeness. Quentin

Exactly how long will it take before there's a fiery discussion about Peco's interpretation of BR Green? Quentin

^Jeff, As a non-expat I might buy one, if only to defy your expectation! (but your point is fair) As for running through incorrectly set points, I have an idea: pay attention! To signals, blades, or otherwise. Prototype operations weren't as quick as we like to portray them so there's plenty of time to cast a wayward glance! Short of mechanical failure it's a non-issue. Quentin

Just out of curiosity why are you building a D-6 into straight (or straightish) track? Quentin

I would think not. The medium is perhaps the best-selling of the code 75 and 100 ranges (I don't have statistics, just spitballing), and due to the underscale timbering looks decent enough in many circumstances. The large would look a bit nicer, but the medium passes if that's all that will fit. With bullhead rail and scale timbering, a medium would look vaguely industrial. In mainline use it might even be called out as silly. But don't listen to me; I like P4. I completely understand Peco's decision to release the best-looking turnouts first. Press will be good, sales will be good, and word of mouth will do the rest. Let it not be forgotten that even a Peco "large" is a TINY turnout in comparison to real trackwork. I think Martin Wynne's closest approximation to a real-life turnout was an A-5.5 or similar. A "large" on the prototype would probably have been an E-something (standard sizes went all the way up to F-20). A C-10 is quite grand for most layouts, yet was actually a humble creature generally seen in marshalling yards, MPDs, and the like. The B-6, which many modellers hold to be ideal and ubiquitous in size, was quite rare and extremely restrictive. Quentin

Hi Colin, I'm sorry to hear of your woes with Marcway. I'm sorrier still that they sold you and presumably still offer such a questionable product. Sadly it bears only passing resemblance to trackwork. Re: check rails etc. Everything you've marked should be removed if possible. There's also the frankly bizarre diamond, but short of building yourself a replacement on a proper template I don't think much can be done about it. Quentin

Just dropping by to say what a terrific layout this is. To tell you the truth it's giving me second thoughts about P4! I would love to see a track plan or overall view--you've struck such a lovely balance with the amount and placement of trackwork. Truly captures the essence of the railway, or at least those parts I'm most drawn to. I especially admire the diversity of trackwork--that line in flatbottom really sells the 50s/60s theme. Inspiring modelling, to say the least. Quentin

Hi Dave, major throwback question (5 years it would seem): When you were doing that Q class did you ever come across drawings of the footplate? Specifically, I'm looking to know the dimensions of the hinged part, as it's been omitted from drawings I've seen. Is it a standard Maunsell part maybe? Thanks Quentin

Hi again, Yep, that picture's the one. The set is actually a single bend right in front of the blade tips, and it looks exactly right. The red line as you have it is correct, but I don't think there is a specific term for bit of straight stock rail that matches the planing of the blade. (The straight bit only lasts for the length of the planing.) What I was referring to was at the far end of the red line--I see a second hard kink instead of a smooth curve that's tangential to the straight bit. Could you upload either the unmarked picture or another (similar) one to verify? It might be a trick of the camera, but if there is a second bend or set it shouldn't be there. Quentin

Rich, I couldn't help but notice that I'm the picture of the set it looks you made a second set where the stock and point rails diverge--I.e. At the heel end of the planing. Is this a trick of the camera?

Good to see progress, but I don't think I see any sets. If you don't put a set the point blades will never fit and you'll have untold trouble with derailments at the points. A set is a sharp bend just before the tips--for the length of the planing there is to be zero curvature on the diverging route. I believe it's 1:24 for an A switch and 1:32 for a B switch, but don't quote me on that. Check the Templot site to be sure. Quentin

Hi Rich, Have you considered using the same template multiple times and building the hidden pointwork yourself in copperclad? I think you'll find it's a very easy and fast means of producing track, and miles cheaper. If I'm honest, it should be better running too due to you using a finer standard. Quentin P.S., the new V looks to be a big improvement! I would recommend not laying your timbers before the point and crossing work is done, as it'll be easier to see how well they match up. Or, do what I do and print a separate template and make a rudimentary jig with it using some popsicle sticks. I refer you to the first pic here: http://www.norgrove.me.uk/points.html