jamespetts

I have not yet attempted the plan for the cross in the centre fiddle yard, but I have updated the four track version of the plan somewhat, as shown here: I have been working on a small test layout (in N gauge) in my conservatory whilst waiting for the shed to be built so that I can test various automation hardware/software before finalising the plan for the full sized layout and deciding whether to use MERG hardware (which can only work with JMRI software) or using accessory decoder hardware. Here is the progress so far:

What I ordered was not "Purity Seal", but "Munitorium Varnish", which I understand is the successor to "Purity Seal". What I cannot find out is whether this is acrylic or polyurethane varnish - do you know which it is? I know that Railtec specifically recommend acrylic.

Yes, I did consider that, but if the satin varnish works, this is probably a safer option, since this is easily reversible, whereas Brasso is not.

Splendid, thank you for clarifying that. I have just ordered some of the aerosol varnish. Thank you for the tip regarding the undercoat of satin varnish, too: there are some places where things such as NSE logos will need to be applied in a place that has not bee subject to Brasso treatment, so I shall bear that in mind for those instances. I did try experimentally brushing a more concentrated coat of the Vallejo varnish onto an old carriage but found that this was indeed no better and that the coating was very uneven. Happily, it came off very easily with water and a cloth.

Ahh, yes, I was talking about a sealing coat after applying the decals - I think that the Brasso shines the paint enough not to need a gloss varnish base coat. May I ask what aerosol that you recommend?

Thank you for that. When you refer to satin paint, do you mean coloured paint or clear varnish? I have found that removing the original numbers with Brasso makes the underlying area shinier than the original model, which then looks uneven compared to the surrounding area. The satin varnish has the right level of surface reflaction to match with the original tone (and also helps to protect the decals), but I have yet to achieve a good even application of it, and I do not possess an airbrush.

Does this mean that renumbering is not realistically possible without an air brush?

My matt varnish did not arrive, so I ordered some satin varnish (the Vallejo acrylic). My initial experiences with this have not been entirely positive, as brushing it on left a rather blotchy, uneven look. I had initially diluted it with water; I later watched a video advising not to dilute it. Is brush application of this sort of varnish with an even result possible?

Interesting, thank you. May I ask what the difference on flat surfaces is?

Interesting - does it make a noticeable difference even on flat surfaces to the finished effect?

Splendid, thank you. (Actually, checking the photographs again, this particular decal does not need to be applied over raised/indented detail, as it would have been immediately under the guard's compartment, but it is useful to know this for reference in future).

I have ordered some of the 6mm tape. May I ask - is the MicroSol any good for persuading waterslide transfers to form themselves to the shape of details on the underlying body? I have a blue and grey Class 121 to modify with some NSE branding which may need to be applied over door gaps.

Interesting - thank you very much for the detailed information - that is much appreciated.

Thank you for your feedback - that is most helpful. I noticed that the 47 was fractionally out on that side (with this set of transfers, the number 47 came together, so the whole thing is tilted slightly). The template/masking idea is a very interesting one. Most of the rest of the renumberings that I will be doing will involve somewhat smaller numbers than this (until the Dapol class 50s are released next year, at least), either the very small carriage/multiple unit numbers or the slightly larger NetworkSouthEast or InterCity locomotive numbers, so I am not sure how well that masking would work for that. Presumably, for masking to work effectively, one has to cut the backing paper exactly perpendicular so that the numbers all stop square on the tape? Would a set square help in doing this, do you think, and in aligning the masking tape? Can you think of any way of making sure that one cuts the backing paper at exactly the same distance from the bottom of each number so that they all align exactly? I will look into buying some of that masking tape - that does look useful. Do you find it helpful in number removal, too, if the number to be removed is next to some painted detail that is not to be removed? Edit: It seems that this tape comes in different widths - for N gauge, what width do you recommend?

Thank you for your suggestion, Chris - that is a most interesting idea, which will require quite a few hours to draw out to see whether it would fit, I think. I will have to think about that. Has anyone here actually had a layout laid out like that? If so, was it workable? In the meantime, some consideration needs to be given to which of the two layout concepts to use: the four track version ("C") or the two track version ("B"). I should be grateful for people's views of the relative merits in terms of operating practicality of each, especially given the earlier comments about trains being backed up with the no. 17 version of the original concept (two tracks with five platforms). Here is, for reference, the latest (no. 19) version of the "B" concept, changes from last time being the longer sidings on the up side of the layout (left hand side of the diagram):

I thought that it might be worthwhile having a go at a spot of renumbering while I wait for my shed to be ready to be built, as I shall need to do quite a bit of renumbering if I am to avoid duplicates on my planned N gauge layout set in 1989 on the Western Region of BR. I thought that I should start with the most basic of tasks, renumbering a relatively inexpensive Graham Farish Mk. 2D that I bought secondhand. I chose this because it is the least valuable item of rolling stock that I have acquired that was made after Bachmann took over Graham Farish and more modern production methods were used, including printing/painting methods. I initially attempted to see whether the numbers could simply be scratched off with a wooden cocktail stick. They can be - but this scratches off the blue paint as well, so this was not entirely successful (although the damage is barely visible now that I have applied the new numbers). I then tried Brasso, of which I have quite a bit to polish my brass door handles and candle sticks. Initially, I tried to apply it using a cotton bud, but that was not successful, as the number for these carriages is very small, and I needed to preserve the region letter (in this case, "E" - this carriage is intended to be used on cross-country services) as I do not have any transfers with these prefix letters. I found that applying the Brasso with a cocktail stick worked well, using the side of the point to rub in the Brasso until the numbers disappeared. This time, although the cocktail stick turned blue indicating that the blue paint was being affected, the number was removed with the area below it remaining a uniform blue, so this method was much more successful. I then used Fox Transfers of the water slide type to apply the new number where the old number had been. As I do not have any books of carriage numbers, and this is intended to be a test in any event (and this carriage will probably be replaced when the new Graham Farish Mk. 2 carriages are eventually released), I guessed at what seemed to be a suitble number of 5589, and put together the numbers from transfer sheet F2470. Here is a picture of the Brasso side of the carriage after application of the numbers: Renumbered Graham Farish Mk. 2D carriage (detail) by James Petts, on Flickr The E is, as I thought might be the case, a little bigger than the numbers unfortunately, but, as noted above, I could not replace this, as I do not have any letter transfers at present. The whole thing is sufficiently teeny on an N gauge carriage that one would have to have sharp eyes to notice, I think. I have some clear matt acrylic varnish on order, but it has not arrived yet, so I cannot apply the final coat of varnish as recommended by the manufacturer of the transfers, but hopefully I will be able to do this shortly when it arrives. Next, I thought that I should have a go at a class 47 - I had bought two examples of the Graham Farish 47 535 "The University of Leicester" (372-240) with the intention of renumbering one of them. It is not easy to find a suitable locomotive to which to renumber it, as 47535 had a somewhat unusual flush headcode area at the front end as shown here: 47535 - Leeds April 1989 by Albert Murray, on Flickr and is accurately reproduced on the model. However, I was able to find one or two locomotives that were in the large logo livery in 1989 that had this front end, including 47656, which was evidently used on cross-country services via the Western Region: 47656 by Roger Marks, on Flickr For the larger numbers of the large logo livery, I found the cocktail stick ineffective, and reverted to the cotton bud. I was able to remove both the numbers and the name, leaving the expected glossy surface (which is good for accepting transfers). Using Fox Transfers F2310, I added the number to both sides in the usual way as recommended by the instructions (warm water with soap). I found that a cocktail stick was the best thing to use to manoeuvre the numbers into place, as a brush would not grip the transfer sufficiently. I used the 9 upside down to create the second 6 on each side to avoid having to cut more than two rows deep into the transfer sheet. 47656 has no name, so I did not have to add an etched name plate. Here is a close-up of the result: Renumbered Graham Farish Class 47 (detail) by James Petts, on Flickr As with the carriage, as my matt varnish order has not arrived, I have not been able to varnish the surface (which hopefully will reduce the gloss effect of the Brasso), but the results seem encouraging so far. Here are some comparison photographs of my renumbered 47656 next to the original 47535: Graham Farish Class 47 renumbering: before and after by James Petts, on Flickr Graham Farish Class 47 renumbering: before and after by James Petts, on Flickr Graham Farish Class 47 renumbering: before and after by James Petts, on Flickr Graham Farish Class 47 renumbering: before and after by James Petts, on Flickr Graham Farish Class 47 renumbering: before and after by James Petts, on Flickr I plan to retain 47535 with its original number, as the model depicts the livery that this locomotive carried during 1989. Here are some pictures of the locomotive and carriage together: Renumbered locomotive and carriage by James Petts, on Flickr Renumbered locomotive and carriage by James Petts, on Flickr I am quite pleased with this for a first attempt. I look forward to finishing these properly with the varnish and having a go at some more renumbering, as there is quite a lot to do, especially of carriages and multiple units, but also other locomotives.

In my case, I did spend some considerable time checking that in detail, and determined that my particular shed would be exempt from the requirement to obtain planning permission; I did put a link to that resource in my summary post above.

Chris - I had wondered about that, too. I think that I have managed to fit in what you suggest here: Does this seem to make more sense? A whole train could be held/queued on the leftmost loops off-scene either waiting for the cross-over to be clear or, for entering trains, put there in advance to wait for a free path so that they are not delayed by a train in the other direction. Satan's Goldfish - I am not sure that I can picture what you mean. Can you elaborate, perhaps with a diagram?

If all else fails, one could buy one in another colour and have it repainted professionally: I priced professional painting/kit building/scratch-building services at the London exhibition last month, and a full respray of a 1:76 scale steam locomotive was estimated by one professional model maker at £50-£60, which would make the O2 in Southern Railway Maunsell green cost ~£175 instead of ~£125 (not including postage) using this method. The professional model maker's website is: www.theweatheringservice.co.uk ("The Weathering Service")

Having had - and, as far as I can now tell, overcome some issues relating to the Building Regulations of late in relation to my planned shed, I thought that it might be of use to those thinking of having a shed constructed to set out some of the things that I have discovered/inferred about how the Building Regulations seem to work in practice and what they actually state to avoid some of the uncertainty that I faced when looking to have my shed built. Many of the companies that actually build sheds do not seem fully to understand how the Building Regulations work. Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. I have no professional expertise in dealing with the Building Regulations. No liability will be accepted for any loss arising from relying on what I state here. If you need legal advice on this topic, consult a solicitor specialising in the Building Regulations. Where to find the Regulations The Building Regulations 2010 (the latest at the time of writing) can be found in full here on the government's legislation website. The Building Regulations are secondary legislation, made by a government minister, not by Parliament. The Act of Parliament that empowers the government minister to make the Building Regulations is the Building Act 1984. That can be found here. As we will see, there are some important bits that are in the Building Act 1984, not the Building Regulations. Building regulations and planning control distinguished Building Regulations are a totally different thing from planning control. Planning control did not exist at all before the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 (which has been replaced and amended several times). Building regulations date back to the Great Fire of London. Building regulations are rules about the quality of buildings. If a building meets the regulations, is exempt from them, or the regulations are waived, it may be built. Planning control is about state control of what may be built where. It is not about rules, but about policy. There is a general prohibition on building anything that is subject to planning control without the state's permission ("planning permission"). Whether that permission is granted depends, not on any rules, but on the policies of the local planning committees. It is a matter of discretion, not of right. However, there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to obtain planning permission. Several of those exceptions relate to outbuildings. See the government website here for more information. Building regulations and small detached outbuildings Some types of building are exempt from the Building Regulations. The whole of Schedule 2 deals with exemptions from the Building Regulations. Regulation 9 of the Building Regulations states that a building of any description mentioned in Schedule 2 is exempt from the Regulations. Thus, Schedule 2 just contains a long list of descriptions of sorts of buildings. The main relevant part for garden sheds is class 6 (in a later version now called "class e") of Schedule 2. This is worth quoting in full: (For reference, "curtilage" means the area of land around and including a house or other building). Assuming that nobody is intending to build a nuclear bunker in their gardens, paragraphs 1 and 3 are the relevant parts. Paragraph 3 means that detached outbuildings of less than 15 square meters are exempt if they have no sleeping accommodation. This is relatively simple. Paragraph 1 is slightly more complex (and this was the part that caused the confusion in my case). This provides that detached outbuildings of less than 30 square meters which contain no sleeping accommodation and are either "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" or no closer than 1m from the boundary of a neighbour's land are exempt. The "point of which is less than one metre from the boundary of its curtilage" is simple enough when the word "curtilage" is understood. The more difficult part is what it means for a building to be constructed "substantially of non-combustible material". Being constructed of "substantially non-combustible material" allows a detached outbuilding bigger than 15 square meters but smaller than 30 square meters in area to be built less than 1m from the boundary without having to comply with building regulations. There is no official definition of this, and there have not (at the time of writing, to my knowledge) been any cases heard in court that set a precedent as to what this phrase means. The best that we can do is to try to work it out from the words used. It is probably better to err on the side of caution to avoid ending up being in violation of the Building Regulations. The important word seems to be "substantially". The building must be constructed "substantially of non-combustible material". In other words, the amount of combustible material used must be insubstantial. I imagine what the framers of this legislation had in mind in terms of insubstantial amounts of combustible material was something like a brick building with wooden window frames, doors, skirting boards, etc.. I doubt that any building with any wooden cladding, framing, joists floor or ceilings would be counted as being constructed "substantially of non-combustible material". That is because all of those things are substantial parts of a building and are made of wood, a combustible material. Most sheds/garden rooms will thus probably not be "constructed substantially of non-combustible material". Remember, these regulations ultimately date back to (and were enacted originally because of) the Great Fire of London. Although a huge amount has been added and amended since then, the basic ideas (structural integrity in Part A and fire resistance in Part B) are likely to have remained the same. The big new idea after the Fire was to prevent the spread of fire from one building to the next so engulfing a whole city in an inferno as happened in 1667. That is why a building must either be very small, non-combustible or comply with regulations a whole section of which (Part B) is intended to prevent the spread of fire. As we will see, this is the part that the local authorities tend to be really interested in in the case of garden sheds. Waiver However, that does not mean that all garden rooms will in practice have to be built to the same standards and specifications as a house. This is because the local authority has the power to waive - selectively or wholesale - the application of the Building Regulations to a particular building if "a requirement in building regulations would be unreasonable in relation to the particular case". This is provided for by Section 8 of the Building Act 1984. Precisely how local authorities use this power in practice is outside my knowledge. However, in my case, the building surveyor's office has indicated that it is content that the building be constructed with timber framing, floorboards and joists (with Supalux cladding and rock wool insulation between the inner and outer layers of cladding). From the e-mails that I have seen, it seems that they would have been content for the Supalux to have been used only on the walls near the boundary, but the shed company is going to use it on all of the walls, and I am happy with that, as it is lower maintenance than timber and likely to last longer, as it is not susceptible to rot. However, the local authority in my case (the London Borough of Newham) still wanted a Building Regulations application (albeit the simpler of the two types - a basic "notification" rather than "full plans") to be submitted, and a building surveyor would still have to come and inspect the works in progress to make sure that it is compliant. This was not something that the people building my shed seemed to be used to (and it might be that different local authorities take a more relaxed view of this - I do not know), however, the building surveyor explained this to me on the basis that it is necessary for them to check that the building really is being built the way that the people who are building the shed say that it will be built (with the fireproof cladding near the boundary, etc.). Waiver seems to be a big source of confusion: from what I have seen, in the case of garden sheds/rooms, lots of people seem to think that the things that will satisfy the building surveyors that Part B (control of fire) of the Building Regulations have been complied with is the the same as the building being exempt. It is not: although the local authority may waive lots of requirements (such as foundation depth: the building control surveyor in my case indicated that he would not require foundations to be built to a depth of 1m, "just what is reasonable") that would otherwise apply for, e.g. a house, in the case of a shed of this sort, unless the building really is built of, e.g., concrete, there will have to be some degree of Building Regulations compliance. Practically Probably the most sensible course of action for anyone thinking of having a shed constructed is to contact the local authority's Building Control department before contracting to have a shed built, find out what they would require (including by way of application), then do not hand over any money or sign (or otherwise agree to) any contract unless and until the people building the shed clearly agree in writing to do the exact things that the local authority say that they require. This is likely to be of particular importance where the people building the shed believe - incorrectly - that, e.g., using a fireproof cladding means that the building is exempt and that no application needs to be made. In fact, it is not exempt, and you will need a building control certificate if you ever sell the house - you might also find yourself being required to demolish the building if the building surveyor finds that it is non-compliant (if, for example, you have an extension built and the building surveyor has to visit for that). I hope that this is helpful. I thought that it might be worthwhile to set this out here, in part to repay the great assistance that I have received from others on this forum in relation to track plans and other matters.

Here is a further attempt at a workable quad track version: The only way in which this can fit into the space is to merge the quadruple tracks into double as soon as the fiddle yard area starts. However, this gives rise to conflicts, as the down main crosses the up relief. I should be grateful for any views on the potential workability of this arrangement.

I have been thinking a little more about how best to imagine this location's setting in order to have a workable level of service. Having this on the GWML with only a two track mainline on the up side does not seem workable owing to the volume of express and local traffic that would be using those lines. There therefore appear in principle to be two alternatives: (1) to continue to imagine this as a GWML setting, but with a quadruple track up line, reducing to two on the down (like Didcot); or (2) to cease to imagine this as on the GWML at all, and imagine this as always having been on a twin track mainline. In relation to (1), I am having trouble finding any way of fitting in adequate fiddle yard capacity for a quad track mainline. I thought that I might use the far end wall of the shed for this purpose, but this does not seem to be workable. Below is a diagram of my abortive attempt to do this: The green fiddle yard track on the left shows the necessary length of a fiddle yard siding. As will be seen, this does not fit into the space available. Even if I were to take out the fiddle yard sidings on the far wall loop, this would still lead to myriad conflicts. The only way that I can think of removing conflicts is to have the lines paired by direction rather than by use and have the quad track simply merge into double track just at the threshold of the fiddle yards (removing the necessity to occupy the far wall), but that is not how the GWML was arranged. Below is a diagram of an attempt to realise no. (2) above: As can be seen, this is closer to pure Oxford than a Didcot/Oxford hybrid, with two platforms with through lines in the centre and a main line that was evidently always double track. There are some extra sidings on the up side and the carriage sidings are slightly longer owing to the re-arranged track layout. In this configuration, the carriage sidings do not have access to the up platform (unlike actual Oxford), so all terminating/starting trains would have to use the down platform, with the exception of DMUs using the carriage sidings on the up side of the line down from the station (i.e., lower right on the diagram). In practice, this would mean that all locomotive hauled and some DMU terminating trains would have to use the main down platform for both terminating and starting. I am not immediately sure of how much of a problem that this might be. Imagining this on the Didcot to Leamington line also raises a question about HST services - I very much want to have a regular HST service, many of which do not stop at the station, but there were few HSTs serving Oxford in the 1980s (apart from a few services to Hereford). The best explanation that I have imagined so far for such a service is that these comprise Bristol to Birmingham trains, for which purpose one has to imagine that the more direct Bristol to Birmingham route had been closed in teh 1960s. Even in that eventuality, the service frequency of the HSTs would be less than on the GWML (perhaps 1 or maybe 2 per hour each way), but that may make the timetable more manageable in any event. I should be grateful for any thoughts on these alternatives: can anyone see an alternative way of having a quad track up line, for example, without excessive conflicts?

Thank you all for your thoughts. Firstly, David - I have given some consideration to the issues that you raise. The basic idea of this layout is that it represents a fictional hybrid of Didcot and Oxford (hence name Oxcott), and is thus intended to be situated on the Great Western mainline. The real Great Western mainline is quadruple tracked at Didcot, as is no doubt necessitated by the mix of express and local/freight services and the density of both. The idea of Oxcott was to represent a line that was formerly quadruple track, but subsequently reduced to double track in the 1960s, which is the reason for having the four platforms. I did wonder how sensible that it would be to represent this part of the railway as double tracked given the intensity of different speeds of traffic, and so I attempted to try to quadruple the up (left-hand) side of the layout, but it became apparent that this would not fit without a radical redesign of the whole plan and in any event would involve significant conflicts between the up/down lines at the entrance/exit to the fiddle yards, as the Great Western mainline was paired by use rather than by direction. The reason for wanting a GWML setting was in large part a desire to see large number of HST workings, inducing HSTs passing through at high speed without stopping (as would be common at Didcot). I know that a few HSTs on Hereford services passed through Oxford in the late 1980s, but this is not really quite the same. In terms of the problems with this layout causing excessive conflicts, can you elaborate on what the difficulties might be in practice? The idea is that the upper platforms would be used for trains terminating in the carriage sidings for the most part (and also some mail/parcels workings that occupy the platforms for a long time), whereas the lower platforms would be for long distance Intercity trains passing through. So, for example, one might have a local train come and terminate in platform 5 and, before it had cleared the platform, an express train stop at platform 3. What sort of turn-back facilities at the south had you envisaged? I had in mind locomotive hauled trains terminating in platform 5, being hauled to the carriage sidings, having the locomotive taken off, possibly refuelled, and then re-attached at the other end ready to be taken into platform 4 with an up departure. Is that a problematic way of working, do you think? In relation to the carriage sidings' length, I do not think that any marshalling was actually done in the carriage sidings at Oxford in the 1980s (the photographs of the trains that I looked at in detail yesterday to try to work out how many standard class mk1s that I should need in light of the fact that the availability of these in NSE livery is rapidly deteriorating - I think that I might have bought almost all that were left available new - showed a consistent 1.5 carriages' worth of first class in 9 carriage rakes on Oxford to Paddington locomotive hauled services), although no doubt it would have been done in earlier times. One might imagine that the present layout is as a result of the sidings being cut back somewhat in the 1960s/1970s to fit their more limited modern purpose. Certainly, I cannot fit in carriage sidings 1.5x the length of the platforms, and I do not want to give up on the idea of having carriage sidings at all, as these were always planned to be a central feature of the layout. I wonder whether something might be done to give the visual impression that the sidings were longer in the past, and some buildings to give an explanation for why they were cut back - perhaps the multi-storey car park that I am quite keen to have can be moved to that area? That sort of thing would have been built at just the sort of time that sidings were being cut back and was what a lot of railway land ended up being used for. As to single ended carriage sidings, that would entail quite significant changes in how the layout would be operated (and make its operation quite different from how I remembered Oxford being operated in the late 1980s/early 1990s), which would be contrary to what I am trying to achieve with this layout.

Thank you for your response - that is helpful.

Thank you for your thoughts. I do not think that roof lights would work in a roof that is only a slight angle off being flat, and I do not believe that they are offered in any event. The Little Bytham layout (which seems like a lovely layout) has a slightly different arrangement, with the layout a little way off the window, separated by a back scene: in my case, it would be fiddle yards next to the window.