Andy_C

I do fancy running an era appropriate (era 5) rake of tankers. Charlie from Chadwick recently did what i thought was a very informative video on goods trains... I have some Farish Bitumils tankers already, and might also get some others to make up the rake.

Hi, Im watching with interest, but will be quite brazen in pinching this idea! I also love the blutac on the coach to mark the track out. Also pinched!

https://railsofsheffield.com/collections/n-gauge-wagons-freight/products/revolution-trains-n35tb-101c-35t-class-b-tank-wagon-esso-3546 These…

Thanks for the responses. The Esso comment struck a chord, as Revolution are brining out some rather nice(but not cheap) tankers.

I’ve just posted this question elsewhere, and then done a web search leading me to this thread. A question re era 5 that I can’t seem to put an answer to, please? tanker wagons - would they all still be the same supplier eg Esso, or would a rake run mixed named? Does anyone have a reference I can use? I’m well briefed on mixed freight and braked/unbraced etc, but tanker configurations have me flummoxed? I also know about later eras, and also era 5vuse of a box van between the loco and tankers etc?

Another question re era 5 that I can’t seem to put an answer to, please? tanker wagons - would they all still be the same supplier eg Esso, or would a rake run mixed? Does anyone have a reference I can use? I’m well briefed on mixed freight and braked/unbraced etc, but tanker configurations have me flummoxed? I also know about later eras, and also era 5vuse of a box van between the loco and tankers etc?

Agreed. That, added to the physical constraints I have regarding size of layout, will mean inevitable compromises. I have taken on board your comments re the goods sidings. Thank you for pointing that out.

This crap photo was from the 1917 OS map held at Mansfield library. I intend to return and photo it ‘properly’.

In the meantime, I’ve checked my other plan. I think I had the two curved points the wrong way. The attached is the same as the plan, but again I’m using all of this to get close, but not identical. The 2nd photo shows the altered points in context. I’d love another 8 ft of straight track… Thoughts?

I have. Can you expand on what you mean by trailing v facing?

Harlequin. Thanks for your comments. Here is a more recent plan. There are crossover points on the original plans. I’ve added the crossover etc to access the good yard. You were right re your comment re trains in/out - I’d missed a couple of points on the plan. The 2nd/3rd loop platform is actually scale width at its widest point. I have photos that corroborate how wide that platform was. When I started my research with an ideal to try doing the station, I had no idea how much railway there was around, and I live here!

Hi, Thanks for your response. You make a good point re the carriage sidings, but I can’t fit it all in! I fully accept my plan is a compromise re authenticity, but I also have lots of photos from the era I’m aiming at, showing all sorts going thru/terminating there. The sidings immediately below the station are for goods. The fiddle yard at the bottom of the plan is for obvious reasons, but will also be weathered and lit as such. Plenty of freight.

Here is a track plan that is a few weeks old. It’s evolved a bit more since this version, but you’ll get the idea. The plan doesnt show the baseboard levels. They will take some thinking out. The yard will be one level. Going clockwise the left side track will be on a higher level than the space next to it, on the top of a banking. The points and the left stride of the station need to be higher to allow a Road to go under them (I know about point motor access etc), and then the right hand side track will be higher to accommodate a viaduct as that curve straightens out. So, thoughts? Any hints and tips re baseboard construction welcome. The max size board I can get in my motor is 5x3 ft. I’ll publish the latest plan once I’ve tinkered with it a bit more.

Very helpful, indeed. I like the methodology. Thank you for taking the time to describe/explain.

Sorry about that. I thought the use of 2 MP1s would be right. I’ll have a play with the MP1 when I get it - I’ll have 16 to convert to 3mm for a start. It will be a while before they see action tho - three bedrooms to decorate before baseboards go up! Stupid question number 5 - what size board holes did you drill in your 12mm ply to accommodate the wire that moves the point? I’m thinking of ballast etc as well. Clearly I’ll keep the point mech clear of obstruction…

Hi Mike, thank you for your explanation. To clarify, I’m referring to the SLE390F FINESCALE DOUBLE SLIP Code 55. It would have helped if I’d mentioned this before. Apologies for this. Cheers for this. I’ve had a read. I’ll be powering my MP1’s via a 4018 from Digikiejs. I’ve taken the plunge and ordered some. I’ll have a play with getting it all set up 0n the bench, which will save faffing about under boards once construction begins.

Thank you for all the responses. The MP5 comment is interesting here, as I have a couple of double crossovers. I think that due to the nature of double crossovers I’m better off with 2 MP-1s, though? I’ll be using these motors on N Gauge code 55, and am thinking of droppers from each point as I’ve read about the point connections becoming unreliable after time. I’ll also sort a dropper from the frog on my electro frog points - won’t need to on the newer unifrog ones? These may seem elementary questions, but I’d sooner ask and be corrected either way in my assumptions…

New to this forum, and doing some searching for MP1 users. Can you tell me - did you use the frog switch capability in your MP1’s? (I have posted a separate question/thread asking users of the motor for their experiences, as well).

Hi As it says, really. I quite like the look of this motor, and am considering installing in on a new layout I’m planning. Control will be via a Digikiejs DR4018 decoder. I also like the look of using the frog switch that this motor also can do. Anyone on here nay experience of these devices? I’ll be using Peco Code 55 finescale track, and will have a combo of electro frog and unifrog points. I am new back to the hobby, and will be running DCC, so will be cable dropping from sections, and insulating accordingly. Thanks Andy. Mods - please move this if it’s in the wrong section.

Just wanted to say thanks for posting the journey of this layout on here. Some really insightful modelling. I especially found your platform and baseboard shapes interesting. My quandry is over thickness but also being able to get the gaps and undulations right - I don’t just want a ‘flat board’ design.

Lovely detail! How did you go about reinforcing your platforms? Did you use any track bed, which meant raising the height of the platform?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076CGFXCX/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_PZNES0C55S48RJW9DH7W?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1 Regarding connectors, have you seen these? I spotted these via YouTube, and like the link facility? I spotted your layout and am watching with interest. Thanks for sharing. As a matter of interest, what point motors will you be using with the Code 55?

True. I’m going to use a bit of artistic licence, tho. This layout isn’t for exhibitions. It’s for my own use, so I may do the viaduct as a curve from the north of the station. The sidings will hopefully be more authentic. The TmS and the other side of the layout is still being thought about. The adage of the track plan never bring fully settled is very apt. I have 10ft to play with, in N gauge, so I reckon I can do the station, and then the Southwell curve straight after it. Whether my modelling capabilities match my planning is another matter!

For clarity, here is a rare shot of the Mansfield Town Stn, looking south towards Nottingham. The actual size of the sidings and goods shed to the left on the 1st image is staggering, imv. Plenty of scope for interpretation. I’ll need to judge the platform lengths(they were stone, as were the buildings, btw), will take some thought and further research… The other 2 show the TMS.