Philou

Philou here, Quite sad to read the ending - very much a case of 'what might have been'. Mrs P has friends in Romorantin - I shall look out for the Chemin de Fer du Blanc-Argent next time we're over that way. Round here where I live, there are miles and miles of trackbed, bridges, viaducts and stations of a long-gone metre gauge CFD (Chemin de Fer Departemental). My father had collected a great number of illustrated books on this particular system. Started at the turn of the 1900's and all ripped up by 1938. The locos were sold off to Shanghai. There is one photo of one of these locos in the streets of Shanghai. Cheers, Philip .

Apologies to Harlequin, In reply to my own post #51, the station is Moretonhampstead, pictures of which are in the Hampton Malstead thread. Philip

Due to the huge expressions of interest regarding the location of this proposed layout, here are a few photos: Not sure how the titles should fit - the first picture shows the barn that is waiting to have the render hacked off and the walls repointed. I did the frontage of the house last year and it seems to have held good - so I have the rest to do come the Spring. It's a bit like the Tardis, looks nothing on the outside -but yuuuuge on the inside. Picture 2: This is the ground floor - winter fuel stock plus the new joists to be used for the new floor overhead that are drying out slowly. These joists measure 6m and 8m long. The longer ones (3) will be bolted together to make a new single beam under the free end of the 6m joists. The other ends with be fixed into the wall. I need to turn them over sometime so that they dry out evenly and don't start to flex under their own weight. They will require treating before placing. Picture 3: Floor? What floor! This shows the old joists after I removed the original flooring - it was so wormy that it was like balsa wood. Unfortunately as it was covered with tons of old hay and straw, I couldn't see its condition and I went through it. No harm done as I spread my elbows out as I dropped which stopped me going further - otherwise a 4m drop onto old metalwork (since gone). Picture 4: This photo is the 'free' end of the joists. The beam onto which they are placed is to be replaced by 3 x 8m x 250 x 50 joists bolted together which will be supported on new posts. What can't be seen on the photos is that nothing is level all falls towards the end of the beam (lower left hand side in the picture). Everything has to be relaid afresh. New holes on the level to be formed in the dry stone wall (well not really dry stone - it's stone separated by layers of earth and lime that crumbles when it's touched), concrete pads put in the holes, again levelled, and then the joists laid on top and stone work back filled around. You will see that there is daylight between the rafters and the wall - watertight but not weatherproof. this will be addressed when I do the re-pointing of the walls. Picture 5: On a positive note - the roof is new. I did that two years ago. We are in a very small village and when I said I was doing the roof, the day the hoist turned up to lift the mechanical tiles so did all the villagers - we started at 9:00am and all 1200 tiles were laid by 1:00pm. Great bunch - but 'zey do not underrstand zis silly eengleesh pairson oo play wiz ze trains'. I'm gently mocking as most of them have seen the models I've been doing in card for a module and are reasonably impressed. Cheers, Philip Gah! Edited for minor changes and a couple of greengrocers' apostrophes.

@Anglian @Chimer Right - this looks as if it's going to be an amalgam of my post #38 and #50. The MPD being placed on the north side instead of Clifford. Get rid of the ladders and replace with the traverser. Two single track approach from the mainline (as is - but without any direct connection to each other). Have a single line through 'Clifford' connecting the traverser and Pontrilas - this would permit prototypical stock movement to continue along the GVR. It could work out quite well thinking upon it. Clifford was only ever going to be a single platform and a loop plus the two sidings - whereas Newent could be a far grander affair - double track country terminus with perhaps a small train shed that only needs to be two coaches long. There is another thread showing a similar set up - ex broad gauge country terminus - very small, very stark - but very simple to model. I like where this is going. Thank you both. My next post will have a few photos showing the site where this layout is to be homed. Cheers, Philip

@Chris Aah .. I hadn't read it that way - I understood it as an alternative to your two road approach - which conveniently brings me to the plan that I did since the weekend (amongst other things) showing my take on your two-road approach to the traverser AND keeping the two branches plus a rudimentary MPD. It needs working on but has these elements: Two roads - no polarity issues (though can be overcome with DCC) MPD plus turntable - again no polarity issues A headshunt independent of the two roads I get to keep the two branches (neither of which are connected to the traverser). The downside, as drawn, it looks a little ungainly - but is a fiddle yard after all. Cheers, Philip

Hello thesteambuff, Philou here, I wouldn't rely too much on superglue - it isn't always as good as made out. There will be a strain on the screw head if the bogie is attached via the coupling to something else. In any case, you may find that you will have glued the pivot arm to the screw head. AIUI, superglue works by the exclusion of air while it sets, you need to secure the two parts tightly for the glue to do its work correctly. Screw extractors are available, they work by jamming themselves into the broken stud whilst unscrewing - usually with the assistance of an electric power drill in reverse. However, I will admit that the ones I have would be far too big for your particular job. Have a look on Ebay or at a mechanical engineering site - you never do know. Otherwise, drill and tap or sleeve as suggested above. Good luck, Philip

I have returned! @ Anglian Thanks for the idea regarding the variation on the traverser - something else to consider and to have a dabble. I did draw up a plan based on Chimer's proposal of two access points into the traverser. I did keep the two branches but it meant a long pair of lines leading to it - though they could be used as release roads. By slightly altering the radii leading to the traverser, I was able to create an MPD of sorts with a turntable - which meant additional interest in loco movements. As mentioned above, having arrived at the two-branch terminii, I'm trying to find a way of retaining them - if possible. Nothing has been written in stone! My reasoning is simply that whilst Rule No1 can always apply and there has to be the art of compromise (as ever) when trying to recreate something in the railway modelling scene, I was able to avoid non-prototypical movements off the mainline away from the stations themselves - keeping these 'around the corner'. However, to follow through your proposal, photographs of stock movements at Pontrilas tend to show mixed freight/passenger trains hauled by tank locos (0-4-2Ts and 0-6-0Ts open and closed cabs) sometimes bunker first sometimes smokebox first and sometimes passenger stock leading, sometimes freight. During WWII, traffic was quite dense as an ammunition dump was created which continued to be rail served after passenger and freight traffic along the rest of the line had ceased - so there is merit in retaining this branch in favour of that serving the Newent branch at Ledbury. At Ledbury, the only photographs I have showing stock movements along the branch, are passenger. These being 0-6-0PTs, Prairies and the GWR railcar - no freight, though photos of Newent show quite a number of freight vans - so there must have been some - I just haven't seen photos at Ledbury with freight stock on the branch. There is one drawback in having just one 'branch' serving the traverser, you cannot avoid having to reverse stock movements when you arrive back onto the mainline - otherwise the roundy-roundy becomes a one-way street. You do need two ways out of the storage area in order to avoid such movements. I need to think all these ideas through. I'll post the plan I drew up over the last couple of days following Chimer's proposal - I just need to extract the part rather than showing the whole of the plan . I'll also go take some photos of the barn - as is - so you can have some idea of what lies ahead. I may not do it today as it's sleeting outside and it's a tad cold . Thanks again to you all for taking the time to respond. Philip

Aaaah .................... now I see. Sorry Chimer, I got it all a**e backwards . Of course, it makes more sense. I've started to remodel the storage area and I have a funny feeling that I may try to incorporate your proposal and that of roythebus. It's a bit tight at the moment trying to get the curves in and not going below the 1.0m min radius that I had in mind, but with the traverser it may well work out as the 3-way point is tending to throw things out. I'll see how it goes and all being well, I'll let you all know on Thursday. Have a good weekend. Philip

@ roythebus Well, that's a good idea - thanks for that. I had started toying around with the suggestion made by scottystich of using two traversers to avoid polarity problems. When I got to thinking about the lengths needed - enough to accommodate a minimum 10 coach train + loco and to have storage tracks of a similar length, it would have meant that both branch lines would have disappeared - unless he had another idea of how to place the traversers. I was going to have a look this weekend to see how to tackle the building of the mega-turntable as proposed by Harlequin - or how to incorporate a 'standard' turntable somewhere on one side or other of the storage yard without blocking up too much area. There would have to have been at least one release road. I can see your idea playing something like this - train arrives into any of the free yard tracks, yard pilot engine (why not if there are multiple operators) draws the stock into one or other of two headshunts (to be drawn) parallel to the lines coming off the main circuit and releases loco. Loco reverses back and onto the turntable does a 180° and then EITHER reverses back onto its stock which has been returned by the yard pilot or other stock as determined OR gets parked onto a free length of track fanning from the turntable. Not very prototypical probably - but if it gets the job done this could be a good solution. Furthermore, there's added interest for shunting movements, particularly as unfitted freight would require the guards van to be shunted around so that too ended up at the correct end of the train. AND I get to keep the two branches. As I shall probably be cut off from t'interwebs this weekend and until Thursday ('more jobs that must be done' ), I can concentrate on your idea and dabble around with those previously mentioned in the evening. Now, tell me about these Kadee couplings of which you speak ..................... I've only seen pictures of them and never in the flesh. As Chimer says above, I may get 4 pages of contradictory advice on the matter - but I'm willing to listen to the experience of others (if we can have a little bit of froth - so much the better ). Anyway, thanks to all so far who have up with ideas - I certainly feel very much more optimistic now, than when I started off this thread. I suppose I ought to say thanks to those that drop by to have a read too. Would any of you reading this thread like to see just where this layout is intended to live and the building works that will need to be done to get there? I haven't any photos yet as no works have commenced but that can be easily arranged. The timberwork has arrived though and is currently drying out in the barn. It's likely to be a long process - but I'm happy to give you all a blow by blow account. So the next question is: Do I do that here or have I to start a new thread elsewhere? I've never done a blog and I'm not sure I should wish too . Cheers, Philip Gah! Edited for my granma and removing a camel or three.

@Brassey Thanks for the information - I had seen the layout (not in the flesh) after I had already started the plans for mine - it might have changed the direction of my thoughts . Impressive especially as it's in 7mm! I'm aiming to have a little more landscaping around the station area and to incorporate the chemical works that were rail-served off the goods loop opposite the signal box (approximately located where the layout's console is in the club photographs). I seem to recall that the chemicals were based on wood products - there is one particular photo where there is a yuuuuge pile of logs and wood waiting to be processed. I suspect it may have been tar, creosote and other similar by-products. This could allow for some interesting freight movements. Cheers, Philip

Philou here, Ahhhh ...... well, I might be tempted to go for one. Just so happens that I'm about to start a layout (on another thread) that includes Pontrilas, which during wartime served an ammo dump, which if I stretch Rule 1 plus a Dean Goods (or an early diesel as shown in the earlier photographs), that would make a talking piece. Yes yes, I know unprototypical ...... I wonder if they will bring out the ammunition van - that looked interesting - six wheel bogies ......................... Cheers, Philip

Hello chums, I haven't had an opportunity to fiddle with the fiddle yard to incorporate your ideas, it's been a 'things must be done' day today. But just to show that our thoughts haven't been too far apart - here's one I prepared a few months ago. I recognise that the MPD is not prototypical in layout but I was playing around with ideas at the time. In this variation, access to the storage areas/MPD would have been via the branch-lines and release stock movements, by means of a yard pilot, would have been along either of the branches. Having arrived now with two branch-lines (plan at post #1), it would be a shame, in my view, to replace them with the additional storage and/or the MPD. I will have a go and see what can be done in incorporating a standard turntable somewhere to serve the storage area and yet retain the branch-lines. I will also need to remember to provide head shunts for the yard pilot and stock - probably in parallel to both incoming single tracks - it could look quite good (in my minds eye). Cheers, Philip

@ Harlequin @Chimer @The Stationmaster I can see the advantage of turning a whole train around as to the eye it would look as if it was different stock being run - even just to vary what is available. I hadn't thought of a variation of the traverser mentioned by scottystitch earlier, in having TWO of them - it would indeed get rid of any reverse polarity. I had intended to have that covered by an auto-detect system via DCC that is currently available - in the end though why complicate matters electrically - there will be enough going on already! Regarding the auto uncouplers, are they homemade? I already have two diagrams both of which are from different dates but neither of the ones I have show any of the pointwork inside the yard. However, I do take the point (sorry!) and one not previously thought by me - yes, why not shunt onto the mainline if it's not that busy. Perversely, it seems that Pontrilas, though a less busy branch, was better laid out to avoid over-much use of the mainline. Perhaps Ledbury was more confined being hemmed in by the Malvern Hills one side and a road bridge and falling ground immediately to the other. I'll try and revise the fiddle/storage area and put it on-line probably tomorrow. Cheers, Philip PS: Just a bit of advance warning - if the thread continues over the weekend - I have to be away for a few days from Saturday and I don't think I shall have access to the wifi - so all being well I shall be back on Wednesday/Thursday.

On a further point regarding handling of locos - I just use the proprietary RTR couplings on my stock - should I be looking at a Kadee type coupling on the loco and at each end of the stock so as to have an automated or semi-automated system to uncouple the locos? The downside it seems there are umpteen models to choose from whereas the UK coupler (usually) is a one-size fits all but a b***er to undo without faffing around. I know nothing of Spratt and Winkle, though it seems popular on exhibition layouts. Cheers, Philip Edit: Tidying up

My gaster is absolutely fabbered! Some of you must have been up half the night thinking this through - so thanks for that. I agree with the fundamental idea that stock shouldn't be handled too much regarding fine (and fragile) detail and paintwork - despite good intentions - I note that weathering can be prone to 'finger attack' regardless of any varnish overcoat. I reckon it must be the natural acidity of the sweat pores that does it. Engineering-wise I have no issue in constructing a yuuuuge turntable to turn whole trains around - one point raised and would be answered by that - I had completely overlooked any guards van attached to the rear - or even any fitted vans (perishable goods) that I have seen at the end of passenger stock. For those that haven't seen it (and I think it was in another thread) there is an excellent early 1950s colour film showing a variety of passenger steam hauled stock (and a couple of early diesels) wherein there is a shot of the 'Golden Arrow' at the foot of the White Cliffs of Dover (drifts off into song) arriving at Dover with a couple of freight vans attached - which surprised me as I thought it was a particularity of branch line workings (newspaper trains notwithstanding). I will fiddle with the storage area - I may come back again to an earlier plan that I had with its MPD and turntable as that had a headshunt and yard pilot to allow the release of stock and its loco - but it means that one of the branches would have to go - which would be a pity. Some stock movement won't require loco release as moving into a more modern period being diesel hauled and no guards van would mean simply attaching a different diesel to haul the stock out - which could apply to the steam era but with manual handling (loco lifts) IF there is no turntable. Regarding the one station/two stations debate, I do have the opportunity to lay plain track and no ballasting through one of the stations on the prepared alignment, lightly pinned in place and when ready, lift and replace as necessary with the turnouts and crossings for the station. So that to me is certainly a way forward as it will maintain an interest with roundy-roundy for say bulk freight and longer distance passenger traffic and one station in place with its branch for shunting movements. Again, thanks for your thoughts - a lot to consider. Philip

@ Anglian, @roythebus, @scottystitch Well! What can I say? You guys have come up trumps regarding the NLS site. I had seen a copy of the plan before but not blown up as much and definitely not as clear. However I am still stumped as to what is going on with pointwork outside of the goods shed. The OS sheets tend to show the tie bars of the points - in this case some are visible others not. For example: on the main line there is a trailing single slip leading to the goods yard as 'normal' practice - visible on photos, but in this instance no tie bars shown. Anyway, moving along the track out of the goods shed towards the station there is a diamond crossing followed by? Are they two short radiused points back to back? Double slip? There has to be something to enable freight and goods vans to be released from the shed road without encumbering the main line. Then what is all of that just to the east of the diamond - plain crossing? Slip? And what after that? Another plain crossing or a slip? Questions questions questions (or as Manuel would say Que?). This has left me a little perplexed. @Anglian I'm coming round to your, and The Stationmaster's, way of thinking and doing the stations in two bites. I can also see the reasoning in having just one station and leaving the south (or just as easily the north) side as landscape. I feel though that it would be too much landscape - though in another iteration of the plan as a figure of 8 I did have a quarry so as to generate traffic - could have that instead of a station. Again in another version, instead of having one of the branch stations (Newent) I did have a fully fledged MPD with high level triple coaling stage (borrowed from the TVR yard in Cathays Cardiff) and a turntable - now that would have kept me busy just operating it alone!! It was a bit OTT or so I thought at the time .......... hmmmmm I'm jigging the plan at the moment so I can see how a turntable fits on the end of the fiddle yard. I'll have to remember to keep one track free as a release road . Thanks again for your help, all of you. Philip

@JeffP Fortunately the barn is stone built and does not get hot in the summer - but in the winter when it rains, the damp gets in - but not through the roof as that is new. When the roof was redone 24 months ago, the walls were hacked about to remove timbers that extended from the rafters outwards - but even though the damp gets in, it airs very quickly via the gaps between the roofing timbers and the walls. This will be made good when the barn rendering is removed and the walls repointed. The missing stonework will be made good and new doors and windows put in place, and more importantly, made secure - if only for insurance purposes AND stopping any wildlife getting in. Heating will be provided via a wood-burning stove (known here as a 'turbo'). Thanks for the thought, Philip

@ Stationmaster, Thanks for the heads-up regarding the book. Ledbury lies within 'Herefordshire' which is not in the listing. I wonder if it may have come under the Midland Region? Regarding your earlier comment of the choice of area - I happen to have acquired recently a 'Webb' tank - so that would add to the variety of train movements - a line of PO wagons taking coal northwards and empties back. As an aside, I only bought it as there was a nice photo in a publication that showed the 'Webb' taking on coal at the TVR's Cardiff East depot and I thought of doing a little (non-working) cameo of the picture. Cheers, Philip

@marc smith I hope I'm not going to lead myself OT, but in reply to Bud's, both Peter and I were there at the same time - he started and finished after me. I was in railways and he in military modelling. In respect of the Golden Valley, Peter and I connected are to it obliquely as our father served part of the war at the airfield base - a bit of a 'hush hush' area now I believe - which might have been (or nearby to) the army camp. There was a munitions dump that was served by the GVR for some time after the goods and passenger services stopped in the early 1950s. It could well be the army camp IS the dump. Whether it is or not will give me an excuse to run some gunpowder vans from Pontrilas along the branch . Thanks for your information, Cheers, Philip

Ooh, before I forget, Would any of you kind souls who read this topic, have by chance, a track plan of the Ledbury goods yard. I have found plenty of photos on the web, but the signal box always appears to be in line with the goods shed. Photos at different periods tend to indicate changes in the layout but I can't see the turnouts leading out of the shed. The OS sheets for the site show changes from 1889 through to the 1980s but unfortunately the detail is not too easy to discern. Thanks, Philip

@jf2682 I agree that I ought to get to grips with the construction side of it - however as mentioned in my introduction I have nowhere to start it yet. I do have a club module though that will keep me occupied for a while longer (though work is slow especially as SWIMBO gives me 'that look' if I work on the dining room table ). The club modules are all on 10mm ply but no bigger than 1.2m x 900mm so perhaps the small size is more resistant to abuse, I'll think on what you say regarding the thickness and do some further research on the point. Cheers, Philip

Thanks Stationmaster, I had seen on other topics that you always had positive things to say - so I appreciate your remarks. Insofar as the construction aspect is concerned - yes I agree there is a lot to chew upon - but I've been working on this old farmhouse for 12 years and it's coming to an end despite having the blues from time to time - so I have high expectations to get the base and trackwork down fairly quickly. I had thought of doing one station at a time - I have plenty of track in stock just for that purpose - so your thoughts are perhaps the way to go. Cheers, Philip

Hi Philou here, Thanks to all of you above who have had a look and made such positive responses: I started the topic as I was concerned that perhaps there was too much - I'm sure you all know 'more is less'. Having seen G scale layouts in a cake-box (yeah - I know, exaggeration ) I just wondered if I might have persuaded myself that this was the way to go. Seemingly so far, the message I'm getting is 'go for it' subject to tweaking. Insofar as the peninsular is concerned, it just happened that way as other plans I had created on the same basic layout had a continuous fiddle yard served by both the branch lines, the fiddle yard ended up under both stations. It would have meant strange stock movements along branch-lines. Additionally, when gradients were calculated it ended up with about 100mm (4") freeboard between the top of stock and the underside of the top boards - which would have been a logistical nightmare for hand of god deity movements! However, it was fantastic for storage space. Another reason is that I'm not getting younger (who is - unless you're Benjamin Button) and I'll be 70 by the time this is set up - so at least I can avoid crawling on hands and knees to get from one side to another. 'Aha' I hear you say, 'what about access?' What is not shown, and it's a matter with which I have to settle when redoing the beams and flooring of the space in the barn, access is from below. Hopefully it'll be a little better than just a trap door and a ladder. There will need to be a trap of some sorts in order to make the best use of the floor space. On a previous plan I had shown a traverser plus a space to allow cassettes to be linked in to allow for storage off-stage and of course stock reversal. I left them off so as not to have too much showing on the plan. You will note that there is no MPD - none of the stations had one. Ledbury had a turntable that seems to have been used by banking (or in GWR parlance assisting) engines for the climb through the tunnel. There is a photo of a 2-8-0T being used so more scope for operating interest. Insofar as running the layout is concerned - yes I agree there is a lot for one person - I am hoping that DCC will be the 'third person'. I also belong to a club (not so local to me) and a few are into DCC but they use the Roco Multimaus using a plug and play system with RJ45 plugs so they can literally follow 'their' train around the circuit. I reckon it's 'doable' alone but with the possibility of maybe 5 or more operators - but that means running to a strict timetable (of which they seem to have no concept in running the club layout - but what the heck it's just for fun - no?). Having read the above comments, I shall twiddle the plan and see what happens. So, thanks for your views, I feel far more optimistic about it. Cheers, Philip

@ Apollo Thanks for the input - I'm still considering going for it - but I'll wait until perhaps others have had a say. However, I will rework the plan to see what the raising of the two branches looks like - I did it that way so the fiddle yard access wasn't encumbered. If my track laying skills are OK and pointwork remotely operated via ECoS, I suppose it doesn't matter that the throat cannot be seen. Regards, Philip

Have I painted myself into a corner? Hello chums and chumesess, Philou here, I have a layout in mind that has been over 40 years in the waiting and I have drawn up various plans over the last two via Scarm. However, I have the feeling that I'm not getting the best out of the space I have available and I would appreciate your thoughts. A bit of background: Ever since being a young teenager I had been a collector of locos and rolling stock ready for the big layout. It did help that I worked part-time from 1965 'til 1981 in Bud Morgans of Cardiff. However, I tended to collect whatever happened to catch my fancy – mostly Western Region at the time. Fast forward to around 2013 when I decided that it was time to start on this layout. My brother Peter, he of Lord and Butler, persuaded me (not that I needed much persuasion) that DCC was the way to go and so I now have an EcoS2 and about 20 'modern' RTR models either sound chipped or waiting to be chipped – but again no particular area. I have steam and modern traction but I do have a penchant for older or 'one-off' diesels. I have decided that my 60-odd locos bought previously will not be chipped – they won't be cast aside – but will taken out for a spin on DC from time to time (when recently run, only 3 refused to go and that was mainly due to internal electrical conductivity). 'Hurry up there – what about the layout?' I hear you say. OK, I have an area of about 7.5m x 5.5m (24'6” x 18' in old money) in a barn that is at the moment waterproof but not weather-tight. There is the small issue of rotten flooring beams to be replaced and a brand new floor laid to level. These works will be done this year The grand plan is to build it on 10mm ply with 10mm ply fascias and reinforcement underneath in modules such that if ever I consider the finished article to be show worthy then I can take it apart - though I think it will be too big to be frank. Given the area to play with I decided that I should not compromise on station length nor on minimum radii – 1.0m. However, once outside the station throat then compression has to occur – it seems unavoidable. Peco 75 track and points are to be used at 45mm centres (not 50mm). I have seen on another thread that Peco pointwork can be bent slightly to provide alternative radii so more near-prototypical pointwork can be achieved. At the moment the plans have ended up as a roundy-roundy, two short branchlines and a massive fiddle/stockage yard. Two stations envisaged – Pontrilas with its Golden Valley branch and Ledbury with its Newent branch. Pontrilas: This station no longer exists – only the station building as a private dwelling, the signal box and a refuge siding. I have seen photos on t'intertubes dating from pre-1920 to the early 1950s, and until the station disappeared not very much changed – save a single slip that became a double slip (presumably during war-time), refuge sidings that became goods loops and of course the cessation of goods and passenger traffic in the very early 1950s to the Golden Valley. Why Pontrilas? Hard to say. I think it was the fact it was on a main line and it had a branch line that gave me the opportunity to consider through goods and passenger trains plus branch line traffic served by small tender or 0-6-0/0-4-2 locos (Hilda and John Owen worked the line). The station itself was long enough to take 10 coach trains – which means I can run HST units. There is plenty of photographic evidence of freight and other passenger stock running through the disused station. (Rule 1 will apply ) In addition there is an opportunity to run freight in the 1950s along the branch to serve a munitions depot that had been created during WW II. Ledbury: This station still exists and I used it a few times when I lived there – services to Birmingham and London, though the station buildings and goods yard (save for a refuge siding) no longer exist. The signal box is still there. There was, until the 1960s, the junction with the Ledbury-Gloucester line. The junction itself was gradually reduced from a double track junction to a double track junction serving a single track to a single junction to nothing. Again an opportunity arises to run Castles with six coaches along the main line with smaller pannier or prairie locos and eventually GWR railcars serving the branch. However, in modern times HSTs serve Ledbury, even though the platform is too short, through grandfather rights. The line is used very occasionally for freight diversions. What makes this an interesting station is the trackwork from the Birmingham/London side is single, and always has been, leading into a very narrow bore tunnel on a 1:80 rising grade. Towards Hereford the track was doubled (now reduced to single) over an impressive 16arch brick-built viaduct. Why am I asking for help? I think I may have painted myself into a corner as I have become completely 'fixed' on this 2-station roundy-roundy and given the area I have at my disposal, am I making the best use of the space? That, I know is very subjective. As I see it, the plan (or plans as I have 10 similar on the same theme) ticks the right boxes: a) Roundy-roundy double track for mainline running (Rule 1 can be invoked to permit non GWR/LMS/Western region trains – diversions and errr …. just because). b) Not one but TWO branchlines which can provide plenty of shunting and stock movements when bored of the roundy-roundy. Plus there was a small rail served (pre-1940) chemical works at Pontrilas so more movements possible. c) I have enough stock to provide formations from 1900s through to 2017 (even though Pontrilas has gone – Rule 1). d) A large one-ended fiddle yard centrally place that can be accessed on both sides for hand of god movements and stockage. e) Restricted traffic movements through Ledbury tunnel therefore mainline operating interest. f) Opportunity for oodles of landscaping – river valley at Pontrilas.. Malvern Hills above the Ledbury tunnel (600 feet which is about 2m high). Ledbury viaduct (in a shortened form) at the other end. Neither town is urban in nature. Having seen yesterday (at the time of writing this) the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeTbAXSEuZk) of the Cardiff (Small) Show and what can be achieved in a small area, am I trying to be too big and possibly biting off too much and perhaps go for something else – or plod on (notwithstanding changes that you might suggest)? I'm ready to plod on – but will I be bored? Will I have time to be bored? I have given myself a year to do the barn (and 'things that must be done' in his best Mrs domestic management voice) and a year to lay the track, of which I have already 50% in stock. What do you think? Alternatives considered: Given the area I have, I wanted a prototypical location and based in the GWR/Western territory. Cardiff Central: Excellent for local, mainline and block train movements (even Motorail), but even my 7.5m x 5.5m wouldn't do it justice. Queen Street: Perhaps with the above (too big), but on its own only local passenger and block movements of coal – no mainline running and no other freight traffic. Clarence Road: I saw on RMWeb this location and The Johnster of this parish gave a lot of detail too. Nice single line terminus station with oodles of industrial movements as well. Limited in what can run and definitely no long stock formations. Other possibilities: terminus to fiddle yard with branch and roundy-roundy. But I had that until 1972 (station based on one of CJ Freezers Larger Layout plans) . Or should I consider a looped 8 – plenty of room. Kind regards, Philip Here are two copies of the latest plan plus a 3-D view. Take no notice of the signalling or scenery for the moment. The one copy has the scenery removed for clarity.