5BarVT

Look in disused stations for Kings Cross York Road and there is a photo of the tunnel mouth that your DMU above is about to disappear into and also a photo of what is above. Not dissimilar to the effect you want. Prototype justification - tick; right side of the Thames - tick: what more do you need! Paul.

I hope you haven't gone to print yet as I have a few minor comments too, mainly to do with the lever leads (the box with the details of what the lever does). Levers 6 and 9: the 7 should be on the next row down (like the 5 on lever 4) Lever 13 is led by 12 Lever 14 is led by 15 and 17 Lever 18 is led by 16 as well as 17 Signals 20 and 21 would be better as a mirror image i.e. the post on the right furthest from the line. It really looks good and I'm hoping to get to Lancaster to see it in the flesh. My Dad went to school in Lancaster in the 30s and would have loved to see it too. Thanks, Paul.

Service sheet inside the box that holds mine has R068140777 stamped on it. Didn't know it was that new a model when I bought it. Still running very sweetly when I last ran it about the turn of the century. Will be converted to dcc before it runs again. Paul.

Will the back scene have the corner of Trent House on it? If so you could make it one of the days when I'm 'down south' causing havoc in a layout risk workshop and put me on with back to the window! Paul.

You always need a signal to protect a level crossing but you have never needed to close a gated level crossing in order to run into the platform in your situation. With barriers today you would need to go through complicated processes to decide, but in your era same as gates would also have applied. A limit of shunt in platform 2 would not allow passenger moves (so all incoming trains to 3 then shunt out and back into 2). A main semaphore arm as on 3 would allow passenger moves straight in (doesn't need to go anywhere beyond) and would probably be mounted on the platform rather than in the 6 foot (4 foot is the dodgy bit where trains hit!). Feltham and Reigate have an LoS as you suggested and can only shunt ECS. I'll see if I can think of an example for you where passenger trains run straight in. Paul.

Even on the 12" scale railway you can be sure that the bits that can't be reached are the ones that will go wrong. Paul.

Andy, I am wanting to try Kadees on my first layout for 15 years (baseboards being built and various goodies ready, no thread yet) and I notice that you used Wickes cork tiles on West Shed so I assume you did likewise on Pencarne. I want to use the undertrack uncoupler but it is thicker than the 3mm Wickes tiles that I have even before the steel keeper plate is added. Did you have to cut through the baseboard as well as the cork to fit your uncouplers? Many thanks, Paul. P.S. There is another reason for getting rid of the distant signal - it looks like one of thos foreign thingies that works upside down. (Rapidly buttons up coat to hide Lower Quadrant T-shirt and exits fast!)

Even at 1:76 that's still more than £10! Paul.

If it were a platform that happened to be used for parcels then full signalling would be needed so go for it. The dreaded subject of trap points then comes up. I think that in your time period even passenger bays would have had trap points, but possibly not as it is a terminal station. Cue input from Stationmaster Mike. Paul.

Like it, even though I'm more WR myself. The important thing is to compress the scenery sufficiently to get the Uncle Joe's Mint Balls advert in! Sorry I don't have a photo but I'm sure one of the more local RMwebbers will have. Paul.

Hellifield was my first thought too, but there is an Up Loop that i would have expected to be visible between the platform and the sidings. Paul.

Lots of Western feel on this model. Bristol Panel is instantly recognisable and your attention to detail in the Medium Wide loc by the foot crossing and the two Medium Narrow under the bridge to me show good observation of WR signalling practice. Are they scratch built or does someone make them? The C&W building oozes GW (if I were up to building one it would be for the S&T lineman!). The parcels building looks familiar but I can't quite place where it reminds me of. Wish my skills were that good. Thanks, Paul.

Still there today Al, but possibly not for too much longer. Paul.

Andy, Any idea of the date of the photo of the two bubble cars at Par? The difference in the greenery between the two photos is interesting. By the time if the Inter City HST photo the siding has become well grown over but the lines that remain in use are largely weed free. This is my recollection of those times - brambles and such like on the slopes of embankments and cuttings, but the flat areas near and particularly between the tracks would be largely foliage free. Something to beware of on 70s 'period' layouts. Paul.

And not in blue, just blue/grey :-( Paul.

With mechanical signalling and FPL bars to hold the route it was important to keep the signal off until the whole train had passed as that was what prevented the signalman from inadvertently moving the points. I have a feeling that the instructions may have been to keep the signal off until the train had reached the first set of facing points. With early colour light signalling the rules changed slightly and it was usually the second track circuit that replaced the signal (to allow for double heading and engines where the cab was well back from the first axle). Where propelling or banking was expected, then the signal would not be replaced until the whole train had passed, but this was for the benefit of the driver, not a guard.

Clive, Meant to add last time: Hang ups about trains overhanging the ends of platforms is a relatively recent concern. As late as 1990 there was a Glasgow Queen St to Scarborough Summer Saturdays HST which hung out of the end of platform 6 by a coach and a half i.e. the first coach had no doors on the platform and the second coach only had one. 'Standing out' controls were provided to allow the signal to clear with the train beyond. Paul.

Thank you for your suggestion. I did consider doing something similar two things stopped me, the main one being I want to get the signals so they are working and the added complication of going through the platform put me off and I want to set up a test jig when I make the signals fully working and both legs being the same length will be an advantage. The second reason is my inability to cut things to size and squarely and a wonky gantry would look silly. Clive, This is from memory about 35 years ago when I managed to persuade my training engineer to let me spend some time on the 'outdated technology' at Exeter. If a gantry like that was on a platform, the signal wires needed to pass through the platform and turn vertically up the leg. This would be done using a crank which needed access to be oiled and greased so there would have been quite a large hole in the platform boarded over with removable planks. Turning to your model, you would leave it mounted on the baseboard with both legs the same length and the same large hole. Once you were happy with it working you could then put the planking in (to stop your little people falling in). I too have a Tri-ang Brush 2 (and Hymeks) and have kept away from code 75 track because I imagined the flanges to be too large. Are they OK or have you re wheeled it? Paul.

It was good to meet you both with Camel Quay in Wigan today: I really enjoyed the layout and for me it was 'best in show'. It has excellent scenery in which realistic railway operations happen on a regular basis to draw your gaze around the layout. I have just re-read the start of the thread to see the early days of baseboards, Kadee magnets, Peco track mods and ballasting. All the things I have been mulling over and now just need to get on with. Lots of inspiration and ideas from today but don't hold your breath, my armchair is very comfortable! Paul.