DCB

9ft X 12 ft I could run 8 coach EMUs or 8 coach Mk1 sets plus a loco in that in OO my loft layout was about 14ft X 9ft. Not very obviously mine was DC so I could have hidden sidings, just set the points and out comes a train, not necessarily the right one and quite steep gradients, possible when you throw away the chips and replace with lead to get two levels. But curved points to get the storage round the corners and open storage lops one side DCC or a figure 8 in DC you could get quite a nice 2 or 4 track through station with a small yard, lets face it a modern big yard is often only one siding and a container mover, If watching Emus er I mean EMUs is your thing there is loads of scope. Watch out for the door. I currently have a properly engineered lifting flap which lets me in or out, lift, pass through, drop in under 15 seconds, Previously the lift out took 2 minutes so I crawled under on hands and knees fine in your 30s but... I also had a high level layout 60" to the bottom of the baseboard 62" track level more nod under than duck, and the loft had a near central hatch ( Which at my age is too difficult to get into now,)

I wonder if it might be worth registering as self employed if HMRC come a hassling and then piling on the expenses of running a car to get my stuff 10 miles to the post office, Business use insurance and everything so I make a substantial loss every year which presumably i can offset against other tax liabilities? My eBay sales go into a separate Bank account and purchases and expenses such as postage come from the same account,. After about 4 years it has about £200 in it so I'm not exactly making a fortune, even if my spare stock shelf is groaning under the weight of the bargains and non runners I have acquired. If I bought my glue and paint on the same account I wouldn't even have that much.

The problem here is that while the tracks 2 south 3 north and the platforms and goods yard relationship are similar to Kidlington the track plan is not. The Branch does not diverge at Kidlington it is the 3rd line north of the station. The model plan has no branch run round loop and a goods lay bye, running loop what ever has been added to make the 3rd road. It is not something a full size railway would have built, the whole ethos of the real Kidlington was to keep branch trains clear of the main line. From the NLS map around 1900 Kidlington had the road bridge much closer to the platform and three running lines north of the road bridge for 1/2 mile maybe before the branch swung away to the West , Also North of the road bridge was a branch run round loop. " At Kidlington this meant first unloading any passengers before reversing out of the station to perform the run-round. " There was a scissors crossover between Branch and Down Main. The scissors was unusual I don't know of another example quite like it, but the run round away from the platform made a lot of sense, The Branch was a later addition and Kidlington was adapted to become the junction station and the Branch extended beside the main line even later to keep branch trains clear of the main line.

No experience of HAA's and the like but .... One "Different" wagon or coach in a set can ruin the appearance of a uniform set.. That may be prototypical, Mk1 Buffets and Full Brakes on Mk2 coach sets, or horrible a Mainline Mk1 in a set of Hornby or Lima, a Lima in a set of Hornby. If the buffer heights are correct / uniform that is half the battle visually, Hornby can't even manage that across their own range , almost everything I own Hornby has been lowered to match Bachmann and Hornby Dublo, and if the coupling heights match that's a miracle (most of mine use Peco) If starting again I would would try to buy complete rakes from the same batch from the same manufacturer, Different batches can vary quite dramatically en they are produced at different factories in the far east from different materials to different specifications.

Realistically you need 3ft 6" X 3ft 6" minimum, Mine is 2ft X 5ft ish but only 0-4-0s and heavily modified longer locos can scrape round, Modern RTR locos like 3rd Radius, especially when new, bit of wear and they cope with 2nd but my Bachmann 64XX still doesn't like 2nd radius after maybe 10 years. A lot of kit builds from the 1980s 90s etc need 24" radius. A circle of 3rd Radius on a clean un carpeted floor (to avoid fluff getting round the axles) or dining table is ideal for testing. Maybe make a circular base board 3ft 6" with a 3ft hole and hang it on a nail somewhere in the shed. 4X2 you could run up and down I have a 4ft ish by 6" ish test plank just as a primary does it go test, and I buffer locos up to the end and leave them slipping while have a coffee.... As regards testing, its a balance, bits break off modern RTR and all kit builds when you take locos out of their packaging and they get damaged while testing. Mazak rot is a time thing, and plastic warp is similar. I think Hornby Dublo / Wrenn benefit from a regular oiling and run but not much else. Everything benefits from dry dark UV proof storage, Mainline plastic valve gear went brittle and if any 4mt or LMS 4-6-0s still run its a miracle and most of the Mazak rot 2000 era Hornby must be dust by now.

On the contrary, a two platform station with no bay and a diverging branch is much more interesting to operate. Less interesting visually as you can't have branch and main line trains depart or arrive simultaneously, but a heck of a lot more interesting to operate. The Branch Auto has to vacate the platform to make room for the main line arrival and then return to pick up passengers, often lurking in a goods yard, it's even more complicated when the loco needs to run round. Totnes on the Dart Valley and the Malmesbury branch junction (Little Somerford) were two. Even two platform stations with a loop would have trains reverse, Cirencester MSWJR had several passenger trains reverse or arrive / Depart ECS back the way they came. Marlborough had most reverse (That's super weird) . When I have a spare lifetime I will make a list but I have all 4 of the Historical Survey of GWR stations books and very few have "Branch Bays" as in dead end, at the junction, fewer still have facing access for arriving trains. Again pre 1900 arrival Bays needed a run round. Railmotors and Auto trains led to some run round loops being taken out of use but usually the train arrived at a through platform, loco ran round and pushed the train into the bay ready to depart again, generally modellers have the auto train go straight into the dead end bay and then straight back out. often on a timer!

I thinned down the cab footsteps and they now just clear the Hornby Rods. I think it looks a lot better on the Hornby chassis than the Wrenn apart from the huge motor sticking up in the cab. I tried the K's and Lima bodies on various chassis. Plan B is a Triang Jinty with the motor lowered and driving the rear axle, Plan A the Hornby Jinty. I quite like the 4-4-0T,Bit freelance just needs smaller driving wheels....

The problem with signalling un prototypical layouts is you can't signal them prototypically! The branch bay is very much a Model railway ploy rather than a prototype feature. They existed, Platform 1 at Exeter St Davids is a bog standard 1950s Hornby Dublo branch bay with facing access from the main line but it's pretty much a rarity. Most branch trains terminated at through platforms. Quite a number started and finished at through platforms. Quite a lot of "Bay" platforms were actually goods docks with 3ft 6" high platforms for unloading goods wagons, and too high to allow passenger carriage doors to open. Other platforms not on the main through tracks were called bays. Where a typical model dead end Bay was provided it usually had trailing access from the main line the train reversed in from the main line and the branch started at the branch Platform, Kemble for Tetbury Maiden Newton etc. and all Branch trains had no other route to the branch, goods and passenger. Where there was access from Double main lines directly to a single track branch good practice was a double junction and enough double track for a train to stand clear of the main line. The plan supplied has the branch joining the main with a facing connection and nowhere for the trains off the branch to go except by running wrong line and then into the dead end bay. That would involve ridiculously over complicated signalling. It would be easier to separate the branch from the main line. nection

In OO you can run shorter trains with a small tender loco like an LMS 2P, 3F, Caley Jumbo, Dean Goods /2251 T9 Or D class J11, J17 etc and 3 coaches which look right instead of a 4-6-2 ad six Coaches which looks a bit silly. A continuous run to show off your collection of big locos is the current optimum for TT 120 as the selectionof available stocks so dire, mainly because they went for 1 : 120 scale instead of the 1:100 the rest of te world uses for construction drawings and models. I think TT 120 will follow Triang TT in a ten year cycle boom then gradual fade away so apart form using the parts for TT 3 I would avoid. Lak of shunting and local traffic locos would kill TT120 for me and the end to end for big locos will really need turntables at both ends. For me a TT120 end to end is a non starter

Very practical saves pulling everything back through the goods shed after loading / unloading. Wouldn't mind betting locos were not permitted to enter the goods shed. Cinderford had such a notice and the only run round in later days was through the goods shed. Lack of joined up thinking is not exclusively a 21st century phenomenon. Like many small goods shed I suspect most shunting was done by a couple of burly porters pushing the wagons. Same with Stone Henge, That just needs new double glazing panels and a new wooden roof and the Druids would be back in business

Do the low geared motors still give a scale 125 MPH capability on about 13 volts? I have early Hornby and early2000s Lima HSTs and can't really see much wrong with them. They ran happily out of the box and still do, Something very few subsequent new loco purchases have managed. My garden line uses remotored Lima mechs with CD drive motors on battery power, I had to re wheel a new class 156 last Christmas with new trailing bogie wheels on the drive axles to stop the bogies tipping and derailing under acceleration not a problem I have previously experience.

I would still keep the inner loop a complete loop ( blue plus deletion as a red x) instead of impinging on one of the main lines, if curved points don't work do you need the platform to be off a loop as the platform becomes rather short. loops 1 and 2 are rather short, I would keep them as straight sidings to get more stock on the layout

The area generally seemed to be infilled around the tracks and the , not least to make walking around easier and safer and the sleepers sunken into an area of level coal dust stained ash or set in to an area of coal dust stained ash rather than ballasted like running lines so I would suggest you fill with Polyfilla to the top of the sleeper level or rail level and apply black/dark grey/rust coloured poster paint and liberally dust with actual Anthracite coal dust. That's what I'm planning when I get a spare month or so...

The layout is evolving into something quite interesting to operate. Its very 1960s so getting 60 plans for small layouts by C.J.Freezer, and early edition 60s / 70s would have been a good start. I say 1960s as the folk writing about "Layout of the Month" had about 6 locos and 12 coaches, plus maybe 20 trucks about the capacity of the proposed layout. Cliff's iteration has a 2 track pinch point at turnout 1 right centre bottom. Not great for DCC, unless you like head on crashes. OK for DC as one would provide an isolated section to stop locos over running. DC and self isolating points gives collision protection just about automatically. I habitually take a hacksaw to set track (Millennials would use a Dremel ) and shorten them to make non standard lengths. I also put 2nd radius curves round the outside of 3rd (or 3rd outside 4th) when it helps geometry so a longer platform loop by cutting and mixing and matching track sections should be do able even if Anyrail can't cope. You can't habitually store 2020 manufactured stock in a box and get it out run it and put it away again with out damaging it, I can't anyway, so for anyone with a lot of stock a complete rethink with storage sidings would be good idea, but with my tweaks there is room for 1 5 coach set a 3 and a 2, 20 wagons etc and everything can get from the centre storage area to and from up and down lines, 3 trains can circulate together, and should be fun.

The Village was made famous by the Tintern Net system of communication invented by Peter Kay and used extensively in Yorkshire.

The only issue I can see is the very limited traffic on this line, could quickly get boring if prototypical trains are run. Great scope for scenic treatment, especially if you like making trees and modelling rivers.

Two power units is the smart move, but several diodes in series will drop the voltage from "12 volts" down to around 6 volts. Playcraft / Jouef made very nice controllers which added diodes in circuit as you turned the knob I made one from a 12 way switch and 11 (1N400 (?)) diodes dropped a 12v 10va controllers speed down to a brisk trot. You might need 6 to get "12volts" down to 6 volts but unlike resistors diodes with a set voltage drop (Diode Drop) per diode are not very sensitive to load so the diode controller works very very well if you can live with the big steps between speeds, Its still going to dim the LED lights if fed from the same power source.

It won't fit the K's Body as the coupling rod pins hit the massively thick cab footsteps. The Hornby Jinty chassis is exactly right overall wheelbase and it fouls . The Wrenn R1 chassis is shorter and the rods clear nicely, The bunker is ridiculously long, longer than any J50 or 51 variant. Plan B is make it a short bunker J51 with a H/D or wrenn chassis , stick it on eBay and see if anyone will pay a few bob for it. At least it will have couplings unlike the link a couple of posts above. Interesting lash ups J50/51 Built to use up surplus 2-2-2 and 0-8-2 tank boilers or so I understand. Not sure why Gresley used side tanks instead of the previous J52's saddle Tanks

With that rear overhang I could use an 0-6-2T chassis.. I have a 3 rail test track planned but this J50 is supposed to be for my son's LNER layout

I can't see how the plan will work with a single Helix. To get up and down you need two helix or some very complicated approaches as the inner track has to start one whole level above the outer and finish one whole level below if the helix is to work for trains in both directions. There has been at least one layout substantially completed which could not be operated without lifting stock off the tracks on the visible section due to no one thinking how where trains would run to. likewise there is no real way to get a visual continuous run over a helix without it dominating a layout With a single helix you need to reverse the trains on the visual section, ideally a terminus and then reverse the trains again on the lower level.

I acquired a made up K's Bodyline J50 body with the intention of making a J50 Submarine ( or a Thompson Q1) It's for a Hornby Dublo R1 chassis which is too short in the wheelbase and has a huge overhang at the rear. Plan A was a Triang Jinty chassis which has the correct overall wheelbase albeit the middle axle is too far back using modern 2000 era Hornby wheels and rods with a 5 pole X04. The trouble is the body length is right compared to the Roche(?) drawing but to fit the short H/D chassis the cab and more seriously the cab footsteps appear to be too far forward and the Bunker far too long. I could flog it on eBay, use the tanks for a Thompson Q1 (one of the best looking locos ever IMHO) use the Lima body, blow £150 + on a new RTR version or ask for help. What have other modellers done. I can't live with the overhang. Should I go for a short bunker J51 |(Thinking LNER days) When did they get tarted up to J50s? What have others done please. Suggestions please.

The Far Twittering and Oysterperch featured in an ancient magazine around 1969 had an 0-2-0 tender engine. Apparently the French had some 0-2-0 locomotives as well as some 2-3-1 tender locos which boggles my mind. It was alleged Herbert Gresley told his side kick Ollie Bulleid that "If you want fame young man design a locomotive with 5 driving wheels."

That's shunting is that. You don't need much, a long siding or two, put the fitted stock at front for a fast freight, or coming back put them in station order, then back the other way fitted at the front, the Southern did a lot of it in North Devon, Yeoford, Okehampton, all with the train engine, no shunters, and you can do it in N or H0 RTR as they have decent couplers, or 00 if you use Peco or Kadee. Now back to the thread.. Standardised wheels and shim the bottom of the flangeways is one answer

For a working rather than cosmetic check rail you need a lot more clearance than that, I used a couple on some awkward curves and generally taper the gap from wide at the start to actually pull the outer wheel flange away from the rail. Mine are higher than the running rail (as per modern full size practice which has seen flangeless wheels banned from NetworkFail or what ever this weeks title is.) Fixing them is a challenge, ideally use set track rail which retains its shape when flexed, mine are soldered to screw heads but you could use cut down sleepers inserted between existing sleepers or solder to brass pins through sleepers. Have you cleaned the track. Not the top, the sides of the rail head the "Gauge Corner" My outdoor battery powered 00 line needed the gauge corner cleaned to prevent derailments on occasion. There does not seem to be any commercially available track cleaner capable of cleaning the inside edges apart from an abrasive rubber. I have a knurled wheel Triang Dock shunter with different gear ratios for each axle planned as a rail grinder rather than cleaner.

It sounds like the slips are not flat, the frog is proud of the running rails which is maybe a manufacturing fault and the wheels are dropping into the "Frog Gap" which is a design fault. The "Frog gap" appeared with the first Peco 00 track, which was "Universal" and could take both massive flange Triang or nearer scale Hornby Dublo or Finescale wheels. Prior to that track was designed with certain wheels in mind, Hornby Dublo wheel flanges run along the bottom of the frog / check rail gap keeping the wheel level as in a modern (US) flange bearing crossing. Graham Farish used a swing nose crossing so there was no gap, it looked horrible but trains ran very smoothly over both types. Bumping into the frog gap was something which folks sort of ignored, much 1960s rolling stock was sprung and or compensated and had bigger flanges. The N gauge streamline is basically half size 00 so the feature or fault was continued. To be honest only adopting a standard wheel profile for all you stock and shimming the flangeways can eliminate frog drop but it should be a minor irritant to a total PITA.