Spikeyorks

Hi All,

Apologies for not posting for a few days but I've been tied up at work and hadn't logged on until last night.

Crikey I can now there have been quite a few suggestions made which I will respond to in due course.

In some cases, although the suggestions have merit, they move the layout too far away from what I originally envisaged.

However I will try and digest (and pinch) all ideas that I think are helpful.

I am reflecting on a few issues;

1) Changing to cassettes to simplify the track layout. (A few people have suggested that 4 car max train length would be OK).

2) Putting the stabling sidings back at the left hand end to give the longer scenic run (and make the crossover more relevant).

3) Introducing a curve (although this would stop me from ever extending at the RH end).

4) Adding 3 inches to both width and overall length.

Just for the hell of it I quickly mocked up the following.

It isn't finished and, ironically, it assumes a 4 road traverser. (1 square = 3 inches)

It is similar to my other track plans but is more curvy.

I still plan to elevate the station building to maximise the length of my platforms.

Tonight I will play with this some more and also read through everyone else's suggestions in more detail.

I appreciate all the feedback as there are plenty of "nuggets" there that will be helpful.

David

Well I now think it time to expand on my idea for the traverser.

I do agree that for home use it would be easier to have a forward facing traverser.

However I am less sure about the scenery compromises to achieve this.

(Also there is an outside chance that I might want to exhibit locally).

So, inspired by Peter flipping his drawing, I have therefore decided to consider making the layout flippable too,

And I think I can do this by adding symmetry to the layout and being smart/simple with the backscenes.

My plan is to simply have detachable backscenes that are brick retaining walls with pictured houses above.

(Metcalfe specials maybe?)

By adding an additional road crossing at the opposite end of the central board I then have a symmetrical sided board.

(I also have somewhere extra to securely attach the backscene too).

I can then fit the same backscene on either side (top or bottom of the plan) thus being able to have the layout either way around.

I can nearly do the same on the station board however this backscene couldn't include the overbridge as there isn't a matching one at the other end.

However, so long as I am careful with the scenery, I could still swap the backs right up to the point of the final overbridge.

(I would then just need to have two small backscenes for the top and bottom of that road bridge area).

The only downside I can see is that I wouldn't be able to "see" the single headshunt at the bottom of the layout.

For home use I don't think I would miss that and I would now have the plus of being able to have the layout either way round.

What do you all think?

I think that this idea could work although I know that there would be implications for the control panel.

However simply for a scenery and physical point of view is there any reason why I couldn't try for the best both of both worlds?

(From an operating point of view the layout would fit either way round in my available space).

So is this just plain daft or worth investigating further?

Thanks

David

I really like your track plan illustrated with this post.

 

If it were my choice I am with Chimer and would have the washer on the track below the diamond.

 

Yes, it might lead to some rather lengthy EMU shunting manoeuvres, but not every station was the epitome of efficiency when it came to working practices.

Hi Jonny

I think I am definitely now sold on the idea of the washer by the diamond.

(Lengthy shunting manoeuvres are no bad thing).

I have now drawn this in and then will, in due cause, add all sorts of scenery paraphernalia around this area.

Thanks

David

Hi Mike

I am coming round to the idea of siting the washer by the diamond. Thanks Chris.

1) It would definitely be an old box that had been re-equipped.

2) The other good thing about siting it by the diamond would be that any associated huts/offices could be sited nearby.

3) We will assume that all points around this area would be operated by hand.

4) We'll leave the signal box where it is.

I will tweak the plan and then explain my traverser idea.

Thanks

David

Would the washing plant sit sensibly between the curved point and the double slip?

 

Chris

Hi Chris.

It could do. The attached photos show how close Chingford's washer is to the stabling sidings there.

So I guess siting it immediately above the diamond would be plausible.

Unless anyone else knows differently?

David

Here's a possible design with the traverser at the front and elevated sidings behind.

ge emu 4e.png

 

I'm afraid it is very different from your proposals but maybe you could do something with it. I had to abandon the diamond crossing so that the line could climb onto the elevated section, I'm afraid...

 

On the plus side:

• 5 traverser roads, all roads can connect to either down or up
• Traverser extends towards you as described above
• Stabling/washer sidings elevated by ~40mm behind traverser (assuming 1:36 gradients)
• All platforms can cope with 4-unit sets
• No pointwork in the right hand 4 feet
• Parallel up and down running for many combinations of arrival and departure platforms
• Room to add other sidings or buildings
• A nice wiggle on entry and exit ;-)

(Don't mention the M word...)

 

I promise I won't mention the M word !!!

Thanks for the time you have taken to draw the plan however the revisions have meant that it has now lost many of the things on my wish list.

I know it might sound silly bit I must have the diamond crossing,

I do want some sort of believable freight,

And I want plenty of siding stabling space so that I can see as many emus as possible.

However I do think that I no have a cunning plan to resolve the siting of the traverse once and for all.

(In fact it's so cunning that I'm going to double check my thoughts to make sure that I've not made an obvious mistske).

Watch this space.

David

David - I don't think your signal box question can be answered until we know what form your imagined signalling will take (e.g. absolute block with no continuous track circuits and lever operation of points, or fully track circuited with all points electrically driven) , which moves you intend to signal and whether the far right crossover of the run-round is controlled by the box or by a ground frame, for example. Sorry if you have already stated this earlier in the thread, but could you remind us?

 

As for the carriage washer, don't worry about it being close to the bridge, especially if you are going to model a covered version, as was more common on the SR in the 1970's/80's. You can always add extra screening to the overbridge at that point to protect passers by!

 

 

PS - I think your latest track plan looks the biz now, notwithstanding what Phil's suggestion may or may not add. My only further suggestion concerns whether you really need the two routes to/from the stabling sidings? Do you expect any of the stabled units to run straight to/from the main line? If not you don't really need that connection (a move to/from Platform 1 can be done in a double shunt via the middle road). That will simplify your signalling and trackwork considerably. But it may be that you want that signature crossover in the plan, in which case, ignore the previous!

 

Strictly speaking, under SR practice, you should have catch points at the end of each platform, and the middle road, and the routes from the carriage sidings and washer road, but you may not want to bother with that level of complexity.

Regarding the signalling then I think nearly everything would be signalled apart from the far RH crossover which I do think would be controlled by a ground frame. I guess the point controlling access to the 2 EMU stabling roads could be controlled by a second ground frame. Would that be likely?

My concern about the carriage washer was whether one would ever be sited that close to, or even under, a road overbridge? My washer won't be a covered one as I am running GE electrics with pantographs. By the way, Is it likely that the point immediately in front of the washer would've been lever controlled?

Personally I like the two routes to and from the stabling sidings. Yes I do see units arriving and departing from these without going through the station. These would be reverse ECS workings in the two rush hours. (Also, as you guessed Mike, the signature crossover is a must).

I think I will give catch points a miss. It is one complication that I can do without. (There will be enough of those when I have to start thinking about all the masts and OHLE that will have to go up).

Thanks once again for the suggestions.

David

Below is the plotted plan with the washer road and the stabling sidings swapped around.

The immediate plusses of this are as follows;

1) The traverser now has much more room to operate within. (I have also reduced the number of roads to 5).

2) There are now 3 stabling sidings at the RH end all of which can now take 4 car emus.

3) Platform 3 can now take a 4 car emu as can the centre road.

4) The washer now is on the LH edge of the central board.

5) I have reinstated the loco release road for the CL31 suburban services.

My only questions at the moment are;

a) Is the signal box in the correct location?

b) Is the washer unit too close to the road overbridge?

Any more suggestions / ideas?

(Now I'm going to mull over Phil's suggestion of putting the traverser at the front of the layout).

Thanks

David

Mike's idea for the positon of the washer is excellent, as trains going onto the depot generally get washed first. Reminds me a bit of the set-up at Bournemouth depot, where trains go through the wash, which is some way away from where they stable, then reverse and stable-up.

 

I'm a little unclear as to how many platforms there are at the station; is it three or four?

Hi Peter

There were going to be 3 platforms at the station. (Platform 3 was going to be walled).

However I suspect it is going to be impossible now to avoid ending up with 4.

That isn't a bad thing by the way......in fact it might enable me to do something on the parcels front.

(I have a RM CL302, a CL129 single unit and could acquire some grubby Mk1s etc).

So let's make PL4 dedicated to parcels traffic and see what it looks like.

David

For a traverser to be used fully you have to be able to connect all roads to the "down" line leading out AND connect all roads to the "up" line coming in. If you don't do that then you can get into the situation where a train leaves on the normal up line onto one of the extreme traverser roads but then can't enter the scenic area again on the down line because the traverser can't connect that road to the down line. Then you either have to manually move the train or accept that it enters the scene on the up line - neither very satisfactory!

 

Assuming that you want every traverser road to connect to both the up and down feed lines, then:

Traverser travel =  (Number of roads - 1) * spacing between centres + spacing between feed line centres

 

If spacing is the standard 51mm both between roads and between the feed lines and you have 6 roads, then:

Travel = (6-1)*51 + 51 = 306mm

 

To work out how much space the traverser will take up between both extremes of it's travel, add the distance from the outermost road centre lines to the outside of the traverser structure.

So if you allow, say, 21mm from track centre to the edge of the traverser bed and another 9mm for a ply wall to give the bed some rigidity and hold trains safely then the space taken up by the traverser would be:

306 + 2 * (21+9) = 366mm

 

And obviously you should leave a small gap either side for clearance, say 5mm either side:

Space = 366+5+5 = 376mm

 

If you're going to manually fiddle with rolling stock on the traverser a lot then you might consider making the road spacing wider so that you can get your fingers between vehicles more easily.

 

Don't forget that you will need to get access to the traverser to poke trains into life, fix derailments, clean the tracks, etc, etc... If the scenery gets in the way it could get very annoying.

Hi Phil

Thanks very much for the science.

I will use this, together with Mike's suggestion above, to see if I can nail this once and for all.

I will definitely need to add a 'clumsy' factor to my measurements as I have a habit of knocking things over.

Hopefully only having the one siding at that end of the board will give me the space to get at 5 traverser roads working correctly.

(Remember I can have a train coming in on the mainline and exiting on the engineers siding. It can then reverse that route when it departs. There is an assumed crossover the other side of the road bridge).

I've got a feeling that we might be there now.

Thanks

David

The alternative, to give you a wider throw for the traverser, is to lose one more stabling siding from that end, make the remaining one the washer road, and have your stabling sidings on the main board, using the washer road as the kick back? You can then get back the three stabling roads you first wanted.

Oh that's an idea I hadn't considered as I'd only really worked from the Enfield Town template.

You're right I think I would get my 3 stabling sidings back......but at the RH end of the layout.

The washer siding would also work at the LH end and it is away from the station plaforms which was another concern.

I will definitely plot this layout over the weekend and see what it looks like.

You may well have solved the conundrum.

Thanks very much Mike.

I think you need to make more space for the traverser to "traverse", as the way I read your plan, not all roads are accessible. Could the EMU sidings be at a higher level, so the traverser can move beneath them?

At the moment I am working on the basis that at least 4 roads of the traverser will line up with both main lines.

The fifth should then line up with the down main line (but not the up).

The fifth and sixth roads would also be tied up with the engineer's siding.

Whether this actually works of course is another matter.

It has been suggested to me that I could work with cassettes (and dramatically simplify everything) as my emus don't need to be turned.

Personally I'm not sure about a 4 foot long cassette however lifting straight up and down might work.......mind you I might also drop the thing too !!!

Raising the emu stabling sidings would appeal as that is how they were in real life at Enfield Town.

However introducing gradients into my station throat might be one ambition too much.

Does anyone have accurate width dimension for both the size and the "area of travel" of a 4 / 5 and 6 road traverser?

Thanks

David

I liked the idea of the loco release road. It gave you more flexibility for the occasional 31+suburban workings to have a quick turnaround and it would be an ideal place to have your favourite loco on display for hours on end. 

Right on both counts. It would be a realistic turnaround procedure and I agree it is a perfect 'showing off' location.

(Basically that's what my fake siding stub was going to be too).

I think I'll put the release road back in.

Do you think having a refuelling point there a bit over the top?

Personally I now think this unlikely and that perhaps just a grubby siding with some sort of hut would be more typical.

David

Is it an exhibition or home layout?

If it's for exhibitions I would build an extra 2' long board to extend the platforms and model the building on, but you could still run it at home without that bit if it's sized to fit a particular space.

If it's a home layout only then I'd either

* Omit the p4 road and put the station buildings there (trains pass through switched off washers all the time)

* Just model the first 1cm of the concourse and declare that the building is off scene.

It's for a home layout. I might have a couple more inches I could play about with but, other than that, there isn't much wriggle room.

(I think the ideal for this layout would've been 3 x 5 foot boards).

If I raise the station building above the tracks then I envisage the whole of the right hand end also being low relief shops.

That should mean that I don't have to model anything else. (Not even a footbridge). Just have the road, a forecourt and a low relief building up top.

(Doing that would mean that I could even turn the station into a partially modelled through station with a second traverser.....albeit I could never use that at home).

I'm not completely convinced by the extra siding by the washer however I have now lost an emu storage road to a more realistic traverser space.

(I guess it would only be at exhibitions that someone would point out that only 3 3/4 of my 4 car emu had passed completely through the washer).

David

I have tweaked my layout plan to take into account some of the suggestions made.

These are as follows;

1) More room for the traverser (but at a cost of an emu stabling road).

2) Second siding by the washer (but now the washer is on the RH board and the siding might not take a 4 car unit).

3) Possible Platform 4 (although I do envisage PL3 being walled).

4) Raise the station building above the tracks thus lengthening platforms slightly.

5) No engine release road.

6) Short stub of isolated track to represent the end of one of the off site engineers sidings (links to traverser).

7) Can't make the layout more wiggly I'm afraid.

So what does everybody think? Better or worse?

David

Some questions that occur to me:

 

Is there enough room for the traverser to connect all roads to the incoming and outgoing lines?

Is the loco release crossover above platform 1 the right way round?

Is the dead-straight double track from traverser into platforms 2 and the middle road a bit boring? Wouldn't it be more pleasing to see trains wiggle somewhat on entry and exit?

If you have a washer passing loop, could you access the stabling sidings from it alone and remove the scissors crossing? That would reduce track density in the middle and allow longer platforms. (Operations them might not be as smooth but could be considered more interesting.)

Hi Phil

The traverser is probably the most sketchy bit of the whole plan. I'm not too fussed if not every line connects up as, really, I want most of my emus on show rather than in the traverser. Having said that they do need to go somewhere when they set off from my station. I will be able to make the traverser a bit wider but accept that I won't know exactly what can be done until I build a full size mock up.

The loco release above platform one is that way round to have the loop line as long as possible. I envisage engineers trains pulling into the top loop road and then running round when PL1 is empty. (Either that or a shunter attaching to the other end and pulling the wagons away). Any loco hauled trains serving PL1 would have a second engine attach to the other end and then take the train away. (A good excuse to have 2xCL31s on site).

Yes the dead straight line is boring. If you look at the earlier plans I did have one line looping round the signal box to add a bit of variety. However I have now realised that I like the idea of fitting a 6 car emu into PL1 (even though I know it won't fit into the traverser at the moment). I also have now become quite attached to the centre road so long as I can get a 4 car emu into it. Mind you I'm with you on the "wiggle" front. Perhaps I'll have a look at that again.

The scissors crossing was common to GE station layouts and is one of my requirements. I like the look of it as I have fond memories of Enfield Town which sort of had that type of layout. From other comments I have now drawn a plan which puts a second siding by the washer and which could arguably create a 4th platform. It doesn't look too 'busy' but it does mean that the washer has to go on the RH board meaning that I have concerns about the washer siding length.

Questions that I am mulling over are as follows;

1) Should I do away with the short engine release/refuelling road? (Any waiting locos could stand on the engineers siding).

2) Should I keep this siding but have the access point actually on the engineers siding itself rather than on the PL1 approach road?

3) If I ditched the siding I could mock up some fake siding ends suggesting that there was a yard the other side of the overbridge. (Could even be connected to the traverser).

4) Keep or ditch the engine release crossover?

As always any thoughts will be appreciated.

David

You could add a second road next to the carriage washer, usually referred to as "Bypass" so as to allow shunting movements without setting the carriage washer off.

At one point I did have a double slip to the left of the washer (where the point is now).

That gave me a second siding, as you suggest, although it seemed to make the layout look too busy.

I suppose I could lose the centre road (but I don't really want to) and put that other siding back in?

Platform 3 moving away from the washer might make that end look less cluttered (and it could then take 4 cars).

The new siding would definitely then also take 4 cars but the washer would have to move back on the end board.

As a result the washer siding might come up a fraction short.

It is a bit of a puzzle at the moment.

I will plot this new version, with the bypass, and see what I think.

David

Do you have any 3 car EMUs? Or at least enough to make the short platform used much? And is the centre road long enough for a 4 car without blocking access to a platform?

I have 2 x CL305 3 car units and also can run a 3 car Class 309 if I so wish. (I can also park a 2 car CL309 there too).

Later on this year I should get 2 x CL306 3 car units.

Finally I have a Royal Mail liveried 3 car Class 302. (Out of period but its nice and bright red).

On the DMU front I have a 3 car CL125 and also a 2 car CL105.

All of these could use the shorter platform which could maybe become a parcels and rush hour platform.

The length of the centre road is going to be tight. My guess is that with a low relief station it would be approx. 46 inches long but that if I raised the station above the platforms I could then get the full 48 inches.

As always an extra two inches could prove critical to success !!!

(I am keen to get a 4 car emu into that centre road).

It is similar with the emu stabling sidings where I can't afford to lose too much space to the low relief depot. Although, at this end, I think I could work around any problem by again having some 3 car units running.

It isn't impossible that I might be able to lengthen a board by an inch or two but that would take careful planning when the time comes.

Kind Regards

David

Looks much more like a workable solution now you have explained your thoughts about the loco hauled sets and the engineering siding.

 

I know the middle road is meant to look like a particular location, but what will you most likely use it for? If you lost it, you could get all your platforms to handle 4 cars?

 

Raising the station building to give you extra room is a good idea. This would be fairly typical of many North London stations, if not termini, but hey!

Hi Mike.

I'm glad it all makes a bit of sense. Thanks very much for your input. It is all very helpful.

It is interesting that you mention North London stations as I think the Bachmann 'March' station buildings have a hint of NLR about them.

The problem with raising the station buildings is that I will then need to do something about ground height and the washer siding which might be tricky.

I supposed creating a derelict area that goes under another road bridge could work?

The centre road has been put in to mimic Hertford East.

You are right in that adding this line limits the length of PL3 however it also gives me that bonus of another stabling line.

The centre siding also gives access to and from the depot stabling sidings without having to use a platform road, as does the washer road, which will be handy.

(I will have a number of 3 car emus so I don't think that the shorter PL3 will be a problem).

I think I should be able to have 2 emus in platform roads, 2 in the stabling sidings and 1 in either the washer or the centre road.

That's 5 on display before I have to even consider things clogging up.

(The diesel hauled services would only run in the rush hour and would be interspersed with short engineers trains).

It's all starting to sound quite busy !!!

David

Below is my latest tweak to the layout plan. I have moved the whole station throat slightly closer to the traverser and can now see that my platforms will be long enough.

(PL1 = 6 car, PL2 = 4 car and PL3 = 3 car long).

I have also now moved the washer onto the central board and, as a result, am more confident that the washing siding will easily accommodate a 4 car emu.

Then there are the emu stabling sidings. As the 3 way point accessing them is not on the traverser board then, in theory, all 3 of them will be 48 inches long so should all accommodate a 4 car emu so long as my low relief depot isn't any deeper than, say 1 inch.

I will add scenery to suggest that there was once a PL4 but that this has now been turned into a car park. (I will fence off the washing siding on the car park side).

At the moment I am planning to create a low relied station building across the platforms at the right hand end. However I think I won't have much depth at all to play with and this might limit the effect. Initially I was thinking about going Art Deco and using the Bachmann building but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps I should raise the station building above the tracks for the final 6 inches or so? Doing so would mean that I could run the platform tracks practically up to the baseboard edge perhaps even allowing PL3 to take a 4 car emu after all. (However doing so might be hard to pull off from a scenery point of view).

Again any thoughts? (I think I am nearly there now).

I've always worked off 11-12 inches per carriage for anything BR and 10 inches for big four and looking at your station and coach sidings I would say all are only good for three coaches apart from platform one but even that is too short when a locomotive is attached.

 

I would be adding a couple of foot to the overall length or replanning the station throat to extend the sidings and platforms.

The layout is designed for emus. Each emu carriage is approximately 10.5 inches long.

I have therefore allowed 11 inches per carriage in my plans. At the moment,

Platform 1 is approx. 63 inches long and would take a 5 car emu (or 2 locos and 3 blue suburbans).

Platform 2 is approx. 48 inches long and would take a 4 car emu.

Platform 3 is approx. 34 inches long and would take a 3 car emu.

I think I can move the throat to the left by approx. 2 inches so will do that and add the extra length to the platforms.

So I'm not sure why you think all platforms will only take 3 coaches?

Have I missed something?

David

I have updated the plan to include an extension to PL1 which should now be long enough to accommodate a CL31 together with 3 blue suburbans and still have room to attach a second loco at the other end.

I have also disconnected PL2 from the original loco release siding.

So PL1 will now host all diesel services, (Still might try for 6 car emu length)

PL2 4 car emu services.

PL3 3 car emu services (not sure if a 4 car will fit).

It also looks like I could now shift all my pointwork on the central board 2-3 inches to the left and get away with it. I will try this later on as it might give me that extra length in the platforms.

Any other thoughts / ideas?

I think you need to think through your Class 31 plus suburbans operation David. I assume you want to run at least 3 coaches with the 31?

 

A loco draws a set into Platform 1. The crossover faces the wrong way for loco release, so a complex reversal is needed, but the run-round is not long enough for 3 coaches plus loco. You just need to reverse the direction of the crossover and this should work ok.

 

A loco draws a set into Platform 2. It cannot get out, That means another loco must be attached at the other end, but to be inside the signal for departure, the train must be limited to two coaches.

 

So unless you only want to run hauled sets of two coaches (which to my mind would not look authentic), I would abandon the loco release, reverse the crossover on Platform 1, and just run your loco hauled trains to and from there. That will also simplify your trackwork further, which will look better and be more correct for the 1970's at such a small location?

 

Alternatively, keep the loco release but use it to store a brake van or two, or something else?

Hi Mike. Thanks for your thoughts.

The run round is actually there for any engineers trains to reverse direction. That is why the points are laid out that way around so as to maximise the loop at the top.

I did initially plan to leave out the engine release crossover as I felt PL1 could be made long enough to have a CL31 on each end of 3 blue suburbans.

However that would've required me to have a station pilot for any goods services. (Class 03?)

You are right about PL2. I think I will have to abandon any thought of that having a diesel hauled service from that platform.

So I could disconnect that platform from the loco release road and simplify the pointwork there.

There would then be more room for extending PL1. (I like the idea of PL1 and PL2 being different lengths).

Actually I have just realised that I could then make PL1 long enough to take a 6 car emu.

(That wouldn't fit in the traverser but that could be a dream for the future).

Class 309s / 306s and 305s would sit nicely as 6 car trains.

So if I put a fuelling point on the loco release siding would it look OK to have a separate loco take any engineers wagons to the yard whilst the train engine was refuelled?

Arguably I could then take the run round out altogether?

So should the loop stay or go?

David

I have had a look at all the recent suggestions (Thanks very much) and have now come up with the following,

1) There are now 3 emu sidings.

2) I have added the Hertford East type centre storage road.

3) I have drawn in a kickback siding for a possible off site engineers yard.

4) I have moved the signal box.

5) Simultaneous platform arrivals and departures are now possible on the layout.

6) Loco release siding for CL31s pulling blue suburbans (PL1 & PL2). 

What does everyone think now? Better or worse?

(There is a lot of track but I think I will, just about, get away with it).

Thanks

David

Have tweaked the original plan slightly to achieve the following.

1) Add a third emu stabling siding.

2) Move all three sidings further 'south' to make more room for the traverser.

3) Hopefully to now have enough room for a 5 road traverser without widening the baseboard.

4) Still keep nearly all the point work on the 5 foot centre board.

I still don't particularly like the top of the plan. The run round is important as I would like to have a small amount of freight coming in, reversing and then heading off-site.

I also want to run the odd CL31 with BR blue suburbans and the engine release crossover will help with that.

It is still very tempting to add some sort of shed / industry to the single siding top left but that might make things too busy.

My plan re the low relief depot at the end of the stabling sidings is to use the PECO shed and, if you squint, it could look a bit like East Ham (see final image below).

Any more thoughts from anyone?

I am particularly interested to hear how wide a 5 road traverser top would be. Do I have the room as things stand? (Note that the traverser will slide under the roadway running parallel with the stabling sidings).

I have also now taken delivery of a CL125 DMU so things won't all be electric.

Thanks

David