Edwardian

Time for...

One might see St Augustine as guilty of similar. Nowadays some historians consider he was greatly embarrassed to find a fully functioning Romano-British church that was getting along just fine without him and the Patriarch in Rome. Considering his career was on the line, he reported accordingly.

Yes, well of course. all these calculations go to pot in 1905 when the WNR hosts a Grand Calvacade to celebrate it's half-century.

That was certainly a thing from the early-mid C14th Historians insist we call the Dark Ages the 'Early Mediaeval' period, as if the mediaeval period wasn't long enough already. They bang on endlessly, and have done for over a generation, about how prejudicial a term it is and that just because Rome had failed, it did not mean that we reverted to savagery, what about Lindisfarne, the Vikings were misunderstood and terribly nice once you got to know them, blah, blah, blah. In Britain, post Rome, the historic record goes dark. We may only view it, as it were, through a glass darkly. That is dark enough for me! Take it away, boys...

Taking the long view of the international situation, Prof Michael Clarke thinks we're heading into "a new dark age" Merry Christmas!

A good point. Many moons ago I read somewhere that one should aspire to a scenic run at least three times the length of one's longest train. If one cannot have such a run either side of a station, one should have it to one side, rather than split the available space into two shorter runs. This is effectively what we deliver in this plan. I say 'we' because it has long been my wish to site BM on a curve in that corner, but it was Brother Schooner who has demonstrated it can fit and made a proper plan of it. He will be able to confirm the distance from A to B, the mainline run must be getting on for circa 15'. If the longest passenger trains are 6-coach expresses, that's about 43" to 46" depending on the length of the carriages and engines used. If from time to time a horse box and carriage truck are added, perhaps at a cost of 8", then the maximum length is still unlikely to exceed four and a half feet (54"). That is well within the one third rule, and I do not see why goods trains need be any longer. Another point is that, visually, I want even the longest passenger train to sit comfortable within the margins of the island platform faces at BM. If I can squeeze 60" (5') between ramps, even the longest train should not entirely fill the available space. I agree. For Fakeney, I do think 6-7 wagons with a tank engine would be the norm, so I should be fine with the 3' cassette trough as already drawn, with a capacity for 8 wagons and a tender engine. No! Now that is the question Yes. Outbound traffic from CA and Achingham would need to me made up at BM. Potentially it's added to traffic from Fakeney and the Birchoverhams, but there could, for instance, just be a return goods trip from Fakeney to AC. Yes, all true I think you might have nailed the answer there. Traffic to and from CA and Achingham has to reverve in and out of BM, so there is an opportunity for marsahlling. This suggests that cuts to and from BM itself could be picked up or dropped in the process. Goods traffic could then be direct between AC and the lines north of BM. Well, I have detailed the core express sets as six 6-wheelers at 35-37". WNR mainline local sets are likely to comprise five fairly short 1880s 4-wheelers that will probably average about 26' o/b, so that gives you something equivalent to five Stroudley 4-wheelers. CA and Fakeney core branch sets are intended to comprise just four 1870s 4-wheelers, that are even shorter than Stroudleys on average and amount to something like 17". There must be room for a strengthening Third on Saturdays and Market Days, but I hope such a small train would not overwhelm the route between CA and Achingham. Wolfringham branch set is only three carriages of even shorter 1860s stock! So, from the maximum express set, each step down in the status of a service means both fewer and older (therefore shorter) carriages. Yes, I think moreover that they are adequate with an adequate margin for additional ad hoc vehicles from time to time as traffic demands.

BTW, the government's net migration policy was novelised in 2019

First they made satire redundant, and I could do nothing. Then they made Truth a thing of the past, and still I could do nothing. Now they've made distopian fiction a reality, so what the feck do I use now to process what's going on?!?

It lacks that distinctive wheel base, really short between the front and centre driving wheels. You may need a genuine American for that:

All most helpful, thanks Yes, the main thing being that the Intentio cassette walls look to be of a height that a wall could be made to disguise It struck me after I had posted that a 4' cassette did not seem too insane, especially if modified to have two lifting handles inboard of the ends by some inches. Here is a very robust example by way of illustrating the point (used for HO stock): Most interestingly, to test my theory that 45-46" cassettes would be manageable, these are 1125mm, so a little over 44". They are of metal chanel construction, of course, and it might be that the wooden Intentio style could not function well at such lengths. Anyway, your last design posted 36" Fakeney cassette trough is what I think we should stick with, while 66" for the main line trough leaves 57" for the train cassette(s), so the problem is not going to be train lengths, but how long a cassette is practicable. EDIT: Now this was more what I'd had in my mind's eye: I see passenger trains as running in rakes that will remain more or less constant. 'Tail' traffic may be added or subtracted, but the formations are likely to remain as sets. So, a WNR express would be, say, Luggage Break / First / Second / Third / Third / Break Third, or, Luggage Break / Luggage Composite / Luggage Composite / Third / Third / Break Third. That core 6-coach formation would not generally change. Sometimes a vehicle could be inserted within a formation, so I would say semi-permantly coupled was the right description. Yes, due to the wish for semi-permanent sets, if I had to choose, I'd rather keep a single cassette. I would consider steel channel rather than makeup the length with 2 Intentio style wooden ones. Agree Well, you're evidently a better engineer than I'll ever be!

These are stunning

I've always liked Carlisle, and was particularly glad to see it when last I was there, having walked from Newcastle!

While not wanting to detract from the most important thing here, your mother's continued good health, I am strangely fascinated by the idea of "a most excellent proper model shop", because they are becoming as hen's teeth. Only an hour and 20 from me. Wigton here I come!

One made by Rapido, I should think. Failing that, IIRC there were kits at one stage. If the thought is an RTR chassis, were I a betting man, I'd wager you wouldn't find a British outline model of a 5' wheel diameter prototype with the outlandish wheel base of 6'3" + 8'6" for the coupled wheels. The ominous words "scratch build" are thus forming in my mind. Whether the HO market would offer a suitable starting point is beyond my ken. You would want an HO model of a prototype with something like 5' 8 1/2" coupled wheels to equal 5' in 4mil. Although, I may have just made that up as I'm rubbish at maths.

As the odd and outlandish seems to sell, I'm just going to leave these here...

Or just dropping the ash in the case of this one!

I agree, the Baldwin with its Midlandised North American look is attractive and distinctive. One ran on the 4mil finescale Ambergate, which I saw, probably at a Manchester exhibition, in the '90s.

To be fair, the Baldwin does not represent the Midland's best effort!

That looks great. I really like the idea of making the cassette walls scenic. It is the perfect solution when using a small number of cassettes, perhaps to a standard length, or where you are driving onto a scenic cassette from a fiddle yard etc. which you will then move. You will understand this, but for clarity, I will explain: The WNR mainline will need a separate wall because of the number of different cassettes and the need to shunt them around. Thus, train leaves BM, runs first onto a long train cassette with a shorter loco cassette at the far end. Both train and loco cassettes will be of differing length. There may be 3-4 'classes' of train cassettes, 2-3 for locos. The next service will see a shorter loco cassette placed at the scenic end, with the train cassette behind. Locos are turned in the cassette handling, trains are not. Here is the sort of thing I had in mind. I estimate it's about 6' tall. With foundations in a built up verge, we can add a bit of height, and the Intentio cassette sides will start a little below scenic ground level, so there or there abouts I would guess. So, let's consider train/cassette lengths. I suspect all mainline passenger locos we are likely to see will be accommodated within a 9" cassette. Assuming a 54" cassette trough, that leaves 45" for the train. A 45" cassette, nearly 4', seems less than ideal, but they do not need to be turned. They are lifted up and down, but not swung about! Nevertheless, this must be at the outer limits of what may be workable. Is it enough? Well, a rake of 6 31' 6-wheelers, such as might represent a WNR express, would take up around 35". If companies are using 32'-34' carriages, e.g. a 6-coach GER or GNR train, 37" would be taken up. If a cassette of 45" is used, there is room to add either a seventh coach, or make the sixth a short bogie coach, or add a couple of short NPCs, such as a horse box and carriage truck. There are potentially up to 8 passenger trains that would require the maximum 45" length cassettes: 4 WNR Norwich and Bury sets, 2 GER services, one GNR and one Midland. Most passenger trains would be far shorter. The planned M&GNR service is 5 coaches, and a mix of 4 and 6 wheelers. I might have a similarly composed shorter GER service, more local than the two ex-London express portions, something off the GER's West Norfolk Extension Railway. There would be local WNR services of a similar length and then even shorter branch services. Thus, we can assume 2-3 further standard lengths for passenger train cassettes. In terms of goods, the longest goods locomotive on the WNR is a shade over 7", so we should have 8" cassettes for the goods locos. If we have 46" cassettes for mainline goods, and use a mix of 16' o/b and 15' o/b types of the period, but mainly the latter, we allow for up to 14 wagons, 13 if something longer like bolsters or machinery trucks is included, plus one of the short WNR brake vans. It does not sound a lot, for more 'mainline' companies I would aspire to minimum 15-20 wagon goods trains, but I guess 13-14 is reasonable for the WNR. All this takes us into the realm of custom length cassettes from Intentio (if they can make cassettes as long as 1168.4mm when their 'super' length is 607mm; I mean, will it bow at nearly double their maximum standard length cassette?), and involves me in the fact that they are annoyingly metric, but I will cope! Ultimately, whether we have cassettes, traversers or fiddle yard sidings, practical necessity dictates that we all have to set some artificial limit to our train lengths. As a minor line pre-Grouping layout in 4mil, using predominately 4 and 6-wheel stock, the WNR really ought to be able to live within the constraint of a 45"/46" maximum train length. Well, he's not wrong, but reality is nevertheless irksome! So that's a good idea. Rethinking it last night, I reckon 6-7 wagons plus brake and tank engine is a reasonable average goods service for Fakeney, so I might go for 3', which allows 8 wagons, brake and tender 0-6-0. Any extension flap would accommodate exceptional traffic. Brave

Indeed, and it's the Midland, so why use one locomotive when two smaller ones would do? Ht ... coat

If only!

Mine, at any rate

Yes, keeping access at that end to the rear cassette road is vital to allow the loco casstte of a returning service to be placed. Logically, yes, Aching Constable, besides, Brother Compound says I'm not allowed one of thes 'cos my railway isn't important enough ... So, my thought here, ever since the bright idea of a carriage shed was suggested, was to leave clear ground at eithe end of the cassette 'trough' so that a loco in a cassette could be take off one end and place at t'other. Thus, in the case of the scenic end, I thought a masonry wall the height of the cassette side was all the masking I need, and, as discussed, the current plan would be to use the Intentio cassette system: Given that this cassette trough is to be a minimum of 54" long, and locos are all under 9", I reckon, if I really wanted I could have a 3' carriage siding, much of which would be the shed! That, however, would be excessive and the thing might be to extend it as far as the shorter cassette trough for the Fakeney branch, located at the front of the baseboard, though I suspect it may need to overlap the carriage shed, the shed thus marking the transition between scenic and non-scenic areas at the front of the layout. The Fakeney branch train is only 21", but one must allow for strengtheners, NPCs etc. An 0-6-0 10 wagons and a brake would seem a generous allowance for the branch. and would be double that at 42". The minimum length I think I'd want for the carriage shed itself would be the 17" required to accommodate the Fakeney branch set, the other road accommodating a couple of extra thirds and a luggage brake or van or two. I would probably plump for something in the region of 21" for the carriage shed, which would give me room for 5 short 4-wheel passenger carriages on each siding.

[sigh]

A chestnut roasting on the open fire. Oh course, I forgot, only 'modellers' of the Monoperiod are allowed to want things RTR. My mistake.