Richie Kynaston

A quick question, if i may, for either of the Chris's.....

A friend of mine is interested in this 97xx kit when it comes out.  Is it worth him buying the 8750 donor model now to secure one, or is there likely be a deal pricing with the model and the kit when its released? 

Also, if he buys a DC version, is it a plug and plug option to fit DCC sound, or a hard-wired installation?

Richie

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Are you looking on the National Library of Scotland maps website? The 25" inch maps can be inspiring. On the left of this sheet, a favourite goods station of mine, Birmingham Central, complete with very handy scenic break. Plus plenty of photos on Mike Musson's Warwickshire Railways website, such as this one, if you want to go late 19th century, or this if you prefer eve of grouping.

Thanks yes - the Warwickshire Railways website has provided much inspiration!  Both of those shots you have linked to are superb.  The history shown in them, along with the information that can be gleened from how the goods depot worked is brilliant.  Thanks for the NLoS link, I never seem to be able to find away into those maps unless i follow a link to another one and then navigate around!

Richie 

3 hours ago, James Harrison said:

 

Water Orton, I believe.

Ah I hadn’t given a thought to Water Orton. Thanks

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

There were plenty of instances of facing connections from the main line onto goods lines at the approaches to major goods stations or marshalling yards but in general, out in the country, lay-by sidings were the usual arrangement. Even where there were separate goods or relief lines, facing connections to the passenger or main lines were few and far between. The tell-tale is in the signalbox name - if there was a facing connection, a signalbox would be dignified with the name "Junction". An example was Sharnbrook Station Junction - a wayside station on the four track section of the Midland main line. There was a facing connection from the up goods to the up passenger line, justifying the title "Junction" but none from the down goods to down passenger line. This was a major contributing cause to a most destructive accident there in 1909, which I recently wrote up:

Bob Essery describes the working of the Kingsbury branch in the 1950s in one of those Midland Records. This was a layout which had not much changed from Midland days. To access the branch, a train on the up line had to set back onto either the down line or into the reception line for the exchange sidings - I forget which is described - before drawing forward onto the branch. This was quite a common arrangement, even for branches with a passenger service. Hawes Junction is an example - no facing connection from the main lines onto the branch, so the Hellifield-Hawes passenger train had to set back into the branch platform.

 

Water Orton is rather untypical, being a product of the widening associated with the construction of the Whitacre avoiding line. Midland wayside stations are very uniform in layout - getting that right is, to my mind, crucial in creating a model that shouts "Midland".

I don’t want to clog this thread up, but thanks for taking the time to reply. I could start a new thread for the initial design that I am working on, I guess. I am keen to have a go at something pre-grouping but wanted to bring in a main line feel and station to what will really be a goods area shunting layout, with several ideas borrowed from Lawley Street Goods in Birmingham and Nottingham’s Goods, but I do want to do my best to get the Midland feel to things.

I liked your write up on the Sharnbrook accident. Very interesting.

Hi all,

I hope this would be permitted as the place to ask this question,  as it doesn’t really seem right to create a thread for it.

A couple of questions, if I may, for those of you knowledgable on the Midland Railway, prior to the grouping. Was there anywhere on the Midland system that had an island platform arrangement for an intermediate station (ie Great Central kind of style) where the station buildings were on the road above and just one platform with running lines either side, or for the Midland would it always have been separate platforms for each direction? If the latter what happened about recess roads for freight, would they have been beyond/before the station or round the back of the platforms?

I know there were issues and dislikes for facing points, but did the MR ever employ goods loops, or would they always have been recess sidings that were backed in to?

Finally, can anyone enlighten me (or point me in the right direction) with regards to the approach track layouts for arriving and departing services at exchange sidings or small yards?

I have been reading a a couple of the superb Midland Record journals just lately and it is providing some food for thought with regards to a layout.

Any help/pointers would be appreciated.

Richie

Guys,

Thanks for all the advice and information - much appreciated.

Richie

13 hours ago, Kris said:

Another vote here for JB inserts. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/264372167148?ViewItem=&item=264372167148 

They work well from my experience.

Cheers Kris. Great for storage, but unfortunately they don't get me around the handling aspect.

14 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Whilst expensive, I use the Track Safe Travel system. First rate. 

Thanks Roy, unfortunately for the number I need it takes it outside my budget. But what a fantastic system.

17 hours ago, njee20 said:

Mill Lane Sidings do MDF ones, here, but they're very short; 3 coaches only.

Thanks. That’s something like I was thinking. It also has the advantage of keeping dust away.

17 hours ago, The Johnster said:

You need to develop methods of picking the stock up without damaging; coaches must be handled by the body sides away from detail, and steam locos are usually best picked up by the outside edge of the running plate with your fingers away from handrails or motion.

Yes, this is exactly my point. I need to avoid finger marks, damage, and constant lifting on and off.

2 hours ago, njee20 said:

My concern with using conduit or similar to store entire rakes is what you then do once they're removed from the layout. You can fit covers to the conduit, but unless they're pretty tight stuff is liable to slop around and get damaged.

Yes that’s a valid point. I suspect it would need something with fold up sides that has foam to keep things in position and stop movement?

Thanks guys. I’ll investigate things more. The cable conduit sounds a logical idea I just wonder if it’s strong enough. Having said that it could be mounted to a piece of wood the same length I suppose. Moving them off the layout is no major issue as I have some shelves that they will sit on and I may be able to come up with something that keeps the dust out and makes them stackable too. I’ll give that some thought!

Richie

Morning all,

I am slowly getting to the point of starting to build a new N gauge layout, the first in years. Because if space it is going to have to be portable, which means all the trains will need to be removed when it’s dismantled.

I don’t want to be putting locos, carriages and wagons into individual boxes every time, I want to minimise the handling. Plus keeping wagons and coaches in fixed rakes, possibly up to seven or nine coaches if possible. I am guessing fixed half-sets would be another option. 

I am assuming this is a similar problem to that faced by exhibition layouts, so how do people do it? I mean both storing when the railway isn’t running and moving them to the layout without handling or damage? Any thoughts/pics of what has been done would be welcomed.

Richie

 

 

1

5 hours ago, Wacol said:

TCS do drop in decoders for Kato N gauge models. Looks like a K1D4 would be the appropriate decoder.

Also if the existing decoder is a TCS one, they will repair it, possibly at no charge.

 

Wacol

Thanks Wacol - yes that would be an option. If I'm going to have to buy a new decoder then I am suspecting it is the ideal time to try and put sound it in.  Not sure its a TCS one in already, as there are no TCS markings, and i've bought a TCS decoder for one of the other locos.

 

 

 

2

11 minutes ago, jpendle said:

The vast majority of US manufactured decoders for US outline loco's are drop in replacement PCBs that are swapped with the manufacturer's DC PCB.

You should still be able to read back the manufacturer ID from CV8.

Thanks John,

Yes that was my thought, but when you try and read it back .. its just blank.

Richie

Nick/Mark,

Many thanks for the replies, you've confirmed what I suspected was the case.  I thought there was a difference between UK and US, so I assumed finetrax would be out for that reason.   I may look at using sleepers and rail from the 2FS society and handbuilding track ... but does anyone know what the right sleeper spacing should be? Im assuming there will be a website somewhere in this day and age that would tell us?

Failing that, i'll look also take a look at the Atlas Code 55 trackwork- thanks Mark.

Richie

Chaps,

HEEEELLLLPPPP! 

I do not know if anyone can help me here. I have a Kato N Gauge General Electric AC4400CW model.  It was acquired second hand from Rails and worked fine on DCC (motor only, these are not sound decoders), no problems at all.  When trying to double-head it with another Kato model (a GE ES44AC) the two were always fighting.  The AC4400CW was faster on the same speed step than the ES44.  Now i do not know whose decoder is in these, they were purchased second hand with the decoders fitted.

I attempted to try changing some CVs, but it appeared to have no effect at all.  So as I trial, I changed the address by adding 100 to the number.  I use a Digitrax system, the box beeped as it does, the loco shuffled a couple of millimeters, but strangely was still on the old address. Various other settings were tried, each time it responded as if it should have set correctly, but nothing had actually changed.  Reaching a point of frustration, I wondered if it was the Digitrax system so as i owned a RR-Cirkits USB connector, I downloaded Decoder Pro.  This is where I failed miserably!  I cannot read any settings into Decoder Pro from the loco, I have tried setting different CVs, to no effect, half the time the software says its lost connectivity with the DCC system.  Somehow (I haven't a clue how) I managed to reset the decoder to address 3 - but now its acceleration is not smooth, but almost does full power between speed steps 0-15, until you hit 16, when it just drops to a crawl - 16-99 is a gradual increase in acceleration.  Slow down to 16, your crawling, 15 flys off and then has visual changes in speed as you drop back to 0.

Nothing i do seems to be able to change anything. I wondered if my Digitrax system was at fault, so took it to a friends, connected it to a OO gauge metre length, put a loco with a zimo decoder and everything works fine - change the address ... loco itches forwards a mm or two, select the new address and it smoothly sets off. So the DCC system must be fine, its the decoder that is at fault - but how, what, why and how to resolve it I have no idea.

Can anyone offer any advice, support or thoughts?  I cannot even find a help manual as there is nothing on the DCC circuit board in the loco to say what make, brand or model the decoder is.  I have come to the conclusion it is either a bespoke Kato board, or it is a drop-in board by a third party manufacturer, as it includes the diodes for the forward/rev lights.

As a last ditch attempt, I am toying with just replacing the entire decoder and trying to see if i can get a Soundtraxx Tsunami2 decoder that i can hardwire in ... could be a challenge in N - but one aim was to try and get sound onboard.  Has anyone done this?  Otherwise, I just do not know what to do next!

Richie

Evening guys,

Im about to start track laying on a new small N gauge American layout.  But a thought occurred to me.  We know Peco track for UK use is the wrong spacing for the sleepers, but whats the situation with Amercian railroads? I presume they use a difference spacing than the UK, so is Peco spacing better or worse?  I was thinking about Code 55 rail.

Any help would be appreciated.

Richie

Hi Dave,

Just catching up on things, your work on the DVT is impressive.  Interesting to read your comments on automation plans - Im assuming your layout is DC, rather than DCC?  Cannot quite remember. 

Following along in the background

Richie

7 hours ago, Great Western said:

So he can answer a email which is “good news” as in a general query whilst he’s “out of the office” but can’t answer the 100s of people who are worried they’ll lose money.

So was he out of the office, which you would reasonably assume he can’t answer communications as a result, or is it another mistruth/misrepresentation? 

This get stinkier by the day, where’s the Cook Report bloke when you need him.

I think two things to bear in mind.  When I'm out of the office or on leave, my autoresponder goes on.  If i have a data signal/ability to check emails I will.  I'll answer the easy ones, but leave anything that needs a longer or in-depth reply until i'm back in the office.  So some responses and some non-responses does not suggest anything in my view.

Secondly, you refer to "100s of people who are worried they'll lose money" - all of these projects are crowd-funded, the very definition of which is do not commit to a project unless you can afford to lose the money you commit. I take the view that I am putting money into a project and if I get the end product i've won, but my eyes are firmly open that the outcome may be that I get neither the product or my money back.  Whether through DJM, or any of the crowd-funding websites, there are no guarantees, it is down to the individual to assess whether the risk outweighs the benefit - that is a question for each individual, and not one that needs discussing here.   In saying that, I am not in anyway suggesting there are problems with DJM, just a gentle reminder that all crowd-funding projects carry a high element of risk.

Coming back to the topic, if Dave is in China, that suggests a good push forward, but I am sure all of us who have supported a project will hear when there is news.  Just because we want news doesn't mean there will be any of course!

Richie

Chaps,

Thanks for all the input, i’ve got a few logical ideas I think now. One of the obvious things being to get out of the line of thinking that I have of “I have x amount of space, how to fill it!” It really should be more about what do I want to do, I guess.

A friend made the very valid point last weekend that the railway really should only be 30-40% of the available space, that way the scenery can be built around it, in such a way as to make it look like the railway was built into the landscape(as in reality) and not the other way round. 

Ill come back back with my thoughts and conclusions shortly, but thanks to you all.

Richie

Evening chaps,

On 03/04/2019 at 08:28, Siberian Snooper said:

How about Taunton to Norton Fitzwarren, 4 tracks, 4 through platforms several bay platforms at each end a pair of goods avoiding lines at Taunton plus a reasonable sized goods yard and a loco shed. At Norton you have the junctions for the Barnstaple and Minehead branches. If you continue in the London direction, you have the junction for the Chard Branch and Cogload junction, where the lines for London and Bristol split.

 

I'd start by building a circle of track with the necessary turnouts and then add the 2nd track, this will allow you to run trains and then gradually add to the track work  on a progressive basis and the scenery in a similar manner.

 

 

Thanks Taunton area was one that I had considered, but to do it justice it would need the goods yard and freight avoiding lines including as well, which possibly starts to become a bit sprawling width wise.  But you have given me an idea about Cogload Junction and the approaches, maybe as part of a scene?  Something else into the mix.

On 03/04/2019 at 09:08, beast66606 said:

Millers Dale would make a good through station, 4 to 2 tracks so regulation of trains required, viaducts near the platform ends as well.

 

 

Five - there was also a down passenger loop as well as up/down slow and up/down fast.

Thanks Beast - yes MillersDale would be good, again the problem there is those large bridges, which would need to be right to set the scene, and using the location as a basis, changing the name, probably changes the entire set up too much?  I think somebody on rmWeb has attempted, or was looking to attempt Millers Dale in the past?

On 03/04/2019 at 09:16, Joseph_Pestell said:

I think the OP needs to give a bit more thought to what it is that will give him pleasure when it comes to operating the final layout. Just knowing what type of trains he wants to run may not be enough.

The space available, for N, is simply enormous. Care needs to be taken to design a layout which can be built in stages so that various tasks can be undertaken without becoming too monotonous.

The GNR main line certainly looks like a good prospect, perhaps taking care to pick a location which can give some interesting operation when required as well as the possibility just to watch trains go round.

Yes i would agree with the comments Joseph, that was one of the reasons for the thread - to try and gain some inspiration from others that had a bit more knowledge.  I've got a few options when it comes to operating, but keeping it achievable in sections and/or time is key factor i will admit.

2 hours ago, AndyB said:

Another quick thought. Richie mentions wanting to use DCC.

With the potential for a number of trains running simultaneously he'd maybe need to think about the power available from his chosen control system?

This is obviously getting a bit ahead of things, but controllers are expensive, so worth making sure the right one is selected to start with. 

Good thought yes - although as Im not convinced about sound in steam locomotives being right yet - getting close, but i still have realism issues with it.  Diesel sound is easier as its very repetitive of course, there are so many variables that change the sound on steam.  So it may just be DCC motor control/lights, which I don't think would take all that much power?

Richie

On 01/04/2019 at 18:52, AndyB said:

Ok, to whet your appetite, here's a sketch of the basic plan. 

No prize for my artwork, but you may get the idea. 

Plenty of scope to build this in stages, starting at the terminus. 

Two stations with 6 platforms, a scenic "country" station and plenty of length of free running. You could almost operate it on a "fire and forget" basis until the train was returning to the terminus. 

BTW, with this much real estate and the chance of scale-length trains, have you done a quick calculation of how much each train formation will cost you? A loco is about £120, coaches around £30. Around £300 for a 6-coach train. 

Thanks for that - certainly an interesting proposition I look forward to the book coming even more now !!!  Thanks Andy

On 01/04/2019 at 19:22, Stubby47 said:

Despite living just outside Truro, my home town of Rhyl was also a large multiplatform station.

A double bay faced west, with the branch to Denbigh and beyond and the woodyard wharf. To the east, under the Vale Rd bridge, was the MPD.

Four lines through the station,  express trains to Holyhead with the Irish Mail and later Freightliner containers.

I recall a B&R archive video called North Wales Steam Holiday which was all footage taken from the 1960s on the North Wales Coast - your mention of Rhyl brought it back to me!  Quite a fascinating place I would think, especially on a Summer Saturday! More food for thought there - cheers Stubby

Richie

16 hours ago, AndyB said:

Hi Richie. I'd be happy to, but I think that might infringe copyright? 

Here's a link and others are on sale on eBay I believe.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/plans-for-larger-layouts/

No problem, i'll get hold of a copy from Abe or Amazon

Cheers

Richie

Andy,

Thanks, i’ve heard of Cyril J Freezer’s books but don’t have a copy of the book. Is it possible to PM me a scan of picture taken on a phone? Sounds interesting.

Richie

Yes it would block all moves, as such I'd suggest it was a rare daytime move, more perhaps start/end of service.  But I do not know how Marylebone was worked in the 1940s, so somebody else may well be better placed to comment.

It is a bit like today's railway where Network Rail is working to remove conflicting movements from stations - Reading and the resignalling, flyovers etc, being a prime example.  Back in the days of steam, flexibility was one of the key aims, but just because something could be done does not necessarily mean it was.  I suspect most daytime (especially any peak hour) movements to/from the carriage sidings would have been likely from Platforms 1 or 2 to minimise disruption.  It may only take 60 seconds from clearing the road to the last coach leaving the end of the platform, but that is a long time for a busy station to be brought to a standstill.

However, in all of this, don't lose sight of what YOU want to achieve. Rule #1 applies at all times - its your railway so run it how you wnat, and most importantly be happy with it and get enjoyment from it.

Richie

Hi Andy,

Hmm yes, that is a very valid point actually.  Maybe the better way is to split the scenery into small projects across the whole layout and rather than progressing in a series, clcokwork or anti-clockwork way, keep choosing different projects from across the layout so it is mixed.  Thanks for that observation, something I hadn't thought about.

Richie

7 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Another consideration relates to the sizeable space you have and the sheer amount of modelling you'll have to do in N gauge to fill it.

This would be a particular concern for an urban scene? Endless manufacture of buildings may begin to dampen your enthusiasm over time?

You are obviously aiming to set a high standard for modelling as you mention the trackwork. It'd be a shame if this wasn't reflected in the scenery due to time constraints. 

Having said all that, the idea of Deltics and A3s with full length trains is something I'd like to see! 

Thanks Andy. Yes that is a consideration - one thought i’ve got is to split it into smaller sections and complete each section scenically at a time. But yes that is a thought. I would like to think that a high standard with photo-realistic scenes can be achieved.

I do echo your comments about Deltics and A4s lol!

11 hours ago, mdvle said:

Is this intended for only you to operate, or it is a group of friends over to operate?

 

A group of friends then yes a 4 or 5 platform station becomes viable, but for solo operation where you realistically can only operate 1 train at a time, then you end up with a bunch of empty tracks or parked trains and the timetable becomes your enemy when you try to operate.

 

Unless you are really into computers I would try and avoid automating the trains - it is just one more thing to have to maintain or to fail when you try and run trains.

 

I am not familiar with N, but my first suggestion would be to see if the models that interest you are available.

 

On the assumption appropriate GWR/Western Region models are available, and you have already expressed an interest, given your space you may want to consider Truro.  Offers a through station, goods yard, engine shed, viaduct and a quick measure on Google Maps comes out at around 2700' from the east end of the viaduct to the western limit of the engine shed area - divide by 148 and you get about 18.25' in N.  So with very little compression you could fit it into your space.  It would offer you various operating choices depend on how much time and how you feel on any given day.

 

Brent has also been mentioned, and if you wanted the variety of operating either mainline or a branch it may offer what you want.  The station itself was between 2 road bridges, which works out to 5.5' in N so you could model it and the branch approaches to scale, and then likely have 1 or 2 of the branch stations close to scale with countryside single track running if you wanted.

‘Thanks for that. Yes it is primarily just me. I may have friends over at various points but mainly it will be just me. IT I am quite happy with, having a good background knowledge in both IT and electronics. 

I am torn between GWR and LNER regions I must admit. Truro is certainly worth looking at. There seems to be a wide number of GWR locos and stock available as well. LNER seems more restricted but with possibilities such as diesels and LMS ‘Black 5s’ and ‘8Fs’ to add to the line-up. Brent does seem to have possibilities so have added that to the list to look at. 

I was investigating Llanelli last night as previously suggested. That also brought to mind Grimsby, as it used to be. Three platforms through freight lines, plenty of operating potential, so another option there I think. I approached this on the premise of get the track layout and operating potential sorted, that will then give the operating region. I am beginning to think that I need to sort the region first. Brent certainly ticks the boxes for variety, and allows Kings to appear.

GWR wise, there seems to be Halls, Castles and Kings (not applicable south of Plymouth of course) along with Panniers and 2800s. Prairies are on the horizon too. LNER certain A3, A4 and J39s, plus my favourite WDs. I think there are A1s and B1s available second hand too.

Richie

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Hi Richie, should I infer that shunting necks were more rare than I have given credit? I would have thought it was standard operating practise! In terms of operation that's what I'm after - the alternative is to use one of the running lines which would work, but seems a bit wasteful!  If I were to build this, I am looking to attempt in 2FS - the little cameo I've done is fine, but it's just too small to do anything than be anything other than a semi-static diorama as I alluded to in the OP.  My trackwork gets better every time, so it's just a case of sticking with it through some small adversities I think.

Shunting necks, shunt roads, headshunts, were not universal at big stations but common enough. A lot depends on how you want to operate and whether your striving for having an enjoyable time running as you want, or whether you want to stick to prototypical option.

If the latter, then it’s necessary to consider how a station on the ‘real’ railway would have operated. Lime Street for example would have had pilots shuttling stock in and out, while some main line locos would have backed down to take out stock off an incoming working. If the incoming stock was to form an outbound service but the train locomotive needed to be released the shunt neck comes into play. Using the ‘Up’ or ‘Down’ Main/Slow for this purpose would have hindered the operation of the station. One reason such necks were positioned between the Up and Down lines (on double track layouts) or between Fast and Slow (on quad track layouts) was the ability to reach all platforms with the minimum number of conflicting moves - ie a shunt should cause minimal effect on arrivals and departures.

Kings Cross worked differently, there was a small loco headshunt next to Gasworks Tunnel, which could accommodate two tanks (I think). This gave access to almost all platforms, all stock, unless it was forming a outbound service was moved out to Ferme Park carriage Sidings a few miles away. It led to a very busy, complicated operating situation for the LNER but appeared to work as it lasted so long!

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Ah that's a cracking observation, I I didn't really twig that the pilot would sit inside the station but that makes sense, particularly around the signalling and use of the departure line. I would never have thought of that, thank you!

 

It does beg the question then - is it worth including that 'new' pilot/neck for any other purpose? Either as a road the engine service area (which for the sake of argument I will assume is parallel with the main a short distance down the line, or maybe a branch of some kind? Thinking of Cannon Street's MPD and the wye which connects to Charing Cross - maybe a suitable source and destination for some commuter trains? Or, as per the original design I can just leave it off and take this blessing of two points saved.

Again, it’s how you intend to use it. If your thinking of a servicing area, you wouldn’t use it as a shunt neck. Either there will be a loco there when a shunt is needed, or a shunt will be taking place when you want a loco in or out! Loco Sidings are useful. Liverpool Street in London had a turntable and stabling roads, but Manchester Piccadilly (post 1960s) just had two engine stabling roads, having been designed to accommodate modern traction - not sure what the layout was when it was London Road.

its really about running the moves through in your mind:

1) Train arrives - what happens to stock? Needs shunting go to 2, forms outbound service go to 5.

2) shunt set via XYZ line using station pilot, either to carriage Sidings or to departure platform

3) release loco off incoming service.

4) pilot back to stabling road, new loco onto set

5) train departs

so wherever you locos go to, arrive from, can that happen with other services arriving/departing (is that important?) or while the shunt is happening?

Richie