Fishplate

Would yours come via Stuka airmail Rob . . . . ?

Guess yours would come via Stuka airmail Rob . . . . .

All brilliant pics @KNP. I particularly love the random positioning of the fishing boxes/ lobster pots/ paraphernalia and the clearly 'rotten' timbers under the crane jib in the third picture.

Hi Chris, I've been otherwise engaged for a few weeks and have just managed to catch up on your thread. Some excellent modelling in amongst the conversations about pasties and cream teas . Keeping with the RMWeb tradition of going off topic, I saw these in a local-ish shop window and thought of you. Whilst maybe none apply currently, you could possibly phase them in over a few decades. . . . . . ?

Great, thanks for that. I have a dock with "water" to the baseboard edge, so will give that method a go when the layout is put back together. Been moved a year now, so be prepared for the layout to take a back seat whilst all those 'little' jobs at your potential new house get attended too . . . . .I thought my layout would be fully reassembled within 12 months. Errr, wrong !

Superb, Adrian. That density of trees / shrubs is very realistic. It reminds me of the 009 layouts called Forest Gate and Cliffhanger. If I remember correctly they used expanding foam blobs as the basis for the large area of trees created. I wonder what happened to those layouts? Your method of modelling requires much more patience Ps, I trust Matt was unharmed?

Welcome back Rob . That river is a superb piece of modelling. What did you do at the baseboard edges? Noted you applied with a brush and you left the varnish to find its own level, which suggests enough to create a flow ? I like the bin liners / dust buster idea.

DCC . . . .

Agreed ! And clean ones of Westerham. Have you got any plans for what is next Adrian?

Looking great Chris. Ignoring ballasting, what are you planning next on Warren ?

Thank you for sharing Dewchurch Mk2 with us. some of the pictures you've posted of the layout being dismantled look so like the real thing that perhaps some close ups of a lone goods shed amongst lifted track would be a candidate for a parting shot for the How Realistic are your Models thread. I'm sure many will have favourite places in Dewchurch. My own is shown in your picture of the canal bridge with longitudinal timbers and plated steelwork with complicated permanent way on the approach. Very atmospheric and very prototypical. Looking forward to seeing Dewchurch Mk3.. Good luck with the new build.

A sentence that really must be read in context. . . .

Hi @Graham T, ref your comment Not sure if you have a particular platform face 'style' in mind ? You could adopt the prototype practice of a corbelled brick face. This would enable a step out above the rodding run. Coping stones then overhang beyond the top level of corbelling. You may find you can reduce the gap using this format. I've taken a snip out of a larger photo which shows (possibly an extreme version of) this method: I suspect this might just get you seeking out pictures of GWR branch line brick platforms as a little side swerve in this hobby of ours (Corbel-imey Mary Poppins ). On a separate note I believe some GWR locos have quite wide cylinders compared to other locomotives, so you may find the correct distance to give a reasonable gap to a coach fouls the cylinder, so worth checking what 'fat' (sorry GWR term is 'broad') stock you might have lurking about. Historically, platforms were lower than currently, so a cardboard mock up that you can move / trim might give you a starter for 10. Below are a couple of pics I have on my topic of my cardboard mock-up. This shows the relationship I am planning to get to my stock. The chewed up edge by the EMU shows where I have trimmed to suit. What you are happy with may also depend on how you normally view the platform from your operating position, or how often you plan to take photos which show the gap between the coaches and the platform edge. My island platform will be fitted with a canopy on the curved section. This also helps disguise the gap from my normal operating position. Similarly the narrow platform in front of the mock-up building looks really tight from the angle shown below (it is really tight). But again when face on, it doesn't look that bad. Another area where a compromise may need a 'trick' to convince the eye that it is acceptable. Hope this helps.

As far as domestic missing items are concerned, things are not normally in the last place I look. But they can always be found in the first place Mrs Fishplate looks after I 've called in reinforcements

Is it the wheels on the Rail Replacement Service in a railway context surely . . . ?I

May I suggest, from my own personal experience, that you check the buffer height of the rolling stock you plan to convert. I found some disparity between makes and between proprietary and kit built stock. I also found the 'slop' between the track gauge and wheel gauge in OO combined with small buffer heads caused buffer locking on medium radius Peco points. I only converted a few wagons before deciding that the fitting of three link couplings actually created a series of other problems that I would need to tackle. I decided that the variety of stock I own, or have inherited, combined with the curves and gradients on my layout meant three links would not be for me insofar as regular running was concerned. Your situation will, of course, be different.

Offsetting the carbon emissions presumably . . . .

That is a great result. Looks the biz. A simple solution, as @MrWolf highlights, is often the best. And no more balancing on stools required to get a drivers eye view picture.

Intriguing you ve put "mostly" in there ~ is that shades of Triggers broom? New frame/ New wheels/ New saddle ? Or just consumables ~ brake cables/ tyres/ brake blocks? Would love to still have my Peugeot tourer of the same vintage. Gone, but not forgotten.

I know how you feel. If it's not right and you know it, then it niggles at you . . . . I have to get out of the habit (?) of inaction due to being afraid of mucking it up. Or improve the ratio of 90% planning to 10% action (as I prefer to think of it). Posting on here helps, I think, in that respect. The fact that you are showing what you have done makes it like a virtual never ending exhibition/ demonstration stand with friendly advice coming in. Plus photos can reveal things you don't 'see' in real life. Looking forward to the next installment.

... now that bridge has gone ??

Rule 1 Rules. . . . I guess this is a preservation era running session after your run-in with Lord Cack @NHY 581 .

Can you get a picture through your bridge of a ruler positioned where the signal is planned to be? It might give you an idea of the driver's eye view. You can then compare the known height of the signal you have. I know your track curves after the bridge behind the backscene, but who will know it isn't straight beyond the bridge? So positioning the camera as though the track is on a straight approach may help. Unless you position on the outside of the curve as suggested by @Alister_G

Of all the wagons to put a target on, who decided it should be the gunpowder vans?

We're here . . . .