Harlequin

It's definitely something to think about. I have had buckled tracks on my test layout in really hot weather but in mid-summer the sunspace windows are usually shaded by climbing plants. It was actually quite dark in there last year thanks to runner beans. Much more serious track damage is done by one of my cats, who thinks it's an excellent place to sharpen her claws... And yes, that does have implications for the new design that I have ignored so far.

The removable fiddle yard is a really good idea. It would make the layout a bit less intrusive again. It would need some good engineering but that doesn't put me off. I'm sticking with 5 coach trains for now until I see the proportions of longer trains in the scene. It's easy to make the FY longer - er, in the computer... I'm thinking that if the traverser had a handle on it facing the operating well, or maybe a lever pivoting on the main baseboard for more control, I could at least change traverser tracks without leaving the operating well. I haven't discounted @Keith Addenbrooke's idea of a high level branch FY yet but I need to see if I can fit the proper branch double junction in the scenic area first. If I can then there's probably not enough length to climb up to it. Ooh, intriguing! Sorry for using confusing/incorrect terminology. I meant "turn a whole train" and specifically, "turn a whole train off-scene". I'm going to try to design the scenic pointwork using the new Finetrax OO-SF products. I need to get more info but they are standard geometries so I think I can make very close templates already. They can be curved more easily than Peco parts which is great for curving stations but makes designing with templates more difficult! I think I know how to do it in my drawing program, though. I've been trying things along those lines but the minimum radius and the constrained space make it very difficult. The hidden track needs to be long enough for a train (say 1800mm), outside one of the triangle junctions and needs a crossover in the main line. The only major leeway is to push the triangle further to the right but that brings it's own problems.

Going a bit further: Streamline parts in the off-scene triangle junctions. Track spacing 51mm (red circles) off scene and reduced to 45mm in the scenic area (blue circles). No way to reverse whole trains yet... (Edit: Sorry, I mean no way to turn whole trains off-scene.) Lots of practicalities yet to be sorted out.

Just experimenting to see if something like the original concept can be compressed into the sunspace area. You have to squint and use your imagination a bit: Just guidelines at the moment - the circles set a min radius of 762mm / 2ft6in. Grabbed a bit more space from the room. Dining table would have to move. Double track circuit to allow two trains to run simultaneously unattended. Curved the entire station to try to maximise the scenic length - works out as ~4600mm / 15ft. Triangle feed to 1800mm traverser - so loco plus 5 coaches. There might just be room to reverse a whole train off-scene. Branch line and main lines cross lifting section on the level. Lots of rails to align... Very little countryside running - if any. Hmmm...

“Loft eaves”. Tell us more. Does the roof slope very close to the long thin arm? How much of the width has enough clearance to actually run trains? Are there roof trusses throughout the space? Is the loft insulated?

I checked and rechecked my scaling and my maths before I posted that but you’ve got me doubting it now. It doesn’t look like a very long platform... (Source: 1922 25inch OS map on NLS maps site.) Update: I went to a different source, Vol 1 of “A historical survey of selected great western stations” and scaling from that gives 440 feet, inc. ramps. Further update: Measured the map a different way and got the answer 520 feet, not yards. I have corrected the post above.

Thanks Keith! There are some very creative ideas in this design. It’s a great reminder that a triangle does have to be so literal as I have been thinking. Maybe the two fiddle yard levels could be traverser tables on full extension drawer runners. The lower level could be fully accessed that way.

Agree. The platform must be longer than the average stopping train. You might get away with longer non-stoppers flying through where the lengths might not be immediately comparable and some visual trickery might disguise things. (BTW: Readers, I'm really not a fan of the "Bitsa" station!) The minimum radius I have always had in mind is 610mm for off-scene areas but I've recently discovered that that prevents close-coupling of a Hornby King to it's tender, so I reserve the right to increase the radius! The down platform at Patney & Chirton, the longest, was ~520yds long. A passing Cornish Riviera Express with maybe 12 coaches on(?) would be approximately 280yds long. So, even at a tiny through station in the middle of nowhere where expresses would rarely stop, the platform would dwarf the train. Correction: The down platform at Patney & Chirton, the longest, was ~520 feet long (173 yards) according to the 1924 OS 25inch map. A passing Cornish Riviera Express with maybe 12 coaches on(?) would be approximately 280yds long. So, If the train stopped at this tiny through station in the middle of nowhere, it would in fact would dwarf the platform. This may be a useful precedent for a small layout. I think the best current example of a finescale (OO-SF) main line through station curled into a remarkably small space is Stoke Courtenay. (Note that Stoke Courtenay at 13ft by 12ft is bigger than my sunspace...) And it's a junction too!

Five minimum, Six if possible. Each one could be 70ft long (280mm). Plus loco, for example, King, Castle or 47xx.

@F-UnitMad's suggested of connecting the motors in series requires a different arrangement and you would have to modify or make new blanking plugs to disconnect the motor from the pickups in one (or both) of the locos. DCC wiring has a colour convention so probably best to stick to that: 1: Orange (Motor right) 4: Black (Rail left) 5: Grey (Motor left) 8: Red (Rail right)

The wiring may be complex underneath but it is brought to a very simple interface that you can exploit - the 8-pin DCC sockets. 1 8 2 7 3 6 4 5 Pin 1 is usually marked. Pins 1 & 5 feed the motor. Pins 4 & 8 pickup power from the track. If you remove the blanking plates you could wire two decoder plugs together in such a way that the motors are connected together however you like and plug one end into one loco and the other end into the other. No need to touch the loco’s wiring at all!

Thanks for the wise counsel everyone. I certainly wouldn't intend to keep multiple railways in the one space. Minories, by definition, can be folded up and moved very easily and the test layout would become semi redundant if I had another roundy-roundy available so it would get stored, broken up or re-used. I would never build a fixed layout in my living space. So it would always be possible to remove part or all of it when required, to allow normal life to go ahead or or if it was becoming mentally oppressive. (Chimer makes a good point about where it would go, though.) I have built one shed already and it would be perfect for housing a railway (electricity, insulation, sturdy walls, wired internet). But the conundrum is that it's my workshop and I wouldn't be able to build a railway without it! Catch 22. I could build another shed but that would be a big commitment. The question of why I can't do what I want in a smaller space is interesting. Lots of people achieve great things in small spaces, many of them with similar aims to me on the face of it. On the other hand, there are many people out there who feel the need to make large layouts. It needs a bit more thought but I suspect it boils down to train length. A main line train must look long enough and must not fill the scene that it's in. I thought of a good way to fit a layout into the space with some of the same attributes as HP2: Red: layout (approx 3300mm square), Blue: fiddle yard (possibly removable), Yellow: Duck-under or lifting section (all or partial). That could be lived with for long periods. The fiddle yard could be fed from a triangle and can be seen and operated from inside the operating well to some extent. But is it big enough to do what I want to do and does the shape allow it? It's another design challenge.

YouChoos "All Prairies": https://www.youchoos.co.uk/Index-Shop.php?L1=Project&Item=GWRPrairie

If I remember rightly the decoder is intended to go in the slot you identified, replacing the removable weight, and there are some small notches or hooks to allow you to route the cables back to the socket. (Along the left hand side of the motor???) I'm pretty sure when I did my Hall there were no big problems.

And we have yet to see the inevitable quick-to-market, cheap-and-cheerful spoiler Manor from Hornby...

How about going a bit further with the mechanism and using a lever to move the rod rather than grasping the rod through a knob? With the lever pivot above the rod connection you would reverse the movement so that pulling the top of the lever towards you would push the tiebar away and thus direct trains towards you, same as the lever. Might be useful? Something like that arrangement would magnify the movement as well, making it a bit more "user-friendly".

It's great that Dapol intend to improve the Mogul but bad strategy to announce it quite so straightforwardly. Their customer communication is really not very clever! If we customers know that there's a better version coming then why buy the current version? Some discounting might now be needed to shift the current stock.

Hi Ade, Gradients are usually tricky in small spaces. If you have a station above your fiddle yard, how will you fiddle? (If you see what I mean.) And will there be enough clearance for things that need to hang below the station like point motors and wires? If it's more a storage yard than a fiddle yard, where you just drive whole trains in and out, then you need to know what's in there and where it is so you then get into occupancy detection and maybe cameras.

Divide 1500 by 93. The answer is 16.13. That’s 1 in 16 approximately. I.e. for every 16.13 units forward the track rises 1 unit (inches, millimetres, yards, whatever). That’s very steep. Could be a problem.

I'll wager 400 quatloos on the newcomer!

Unfortunately the TV alcove is not up for grabs because it's designed for the ideal TV watching experience and it works well.

Hi @johnw1 Could you use the Share function in Flickr to allow RMWeb to display your photos directly in this thread, please? It's much easier for RMWeb readers to have direct access to the photos than jumping back and forth between websites. Like this for your Sincil Bank photo: It's still a link to the photo, not a copy, and Flickr wouldn't allow the photos to be shared if access were restricted so there should be no copyright issues. (As you can see it does allow sharing of this photo, for instance.) Thanks,

Yes, N is too small for me and I don't think it has the "critical mass" of products to support the sort of railway I want to create. And sound is even more difficult in 2mm than it is in 4mm. So the scale and the wish to do something with mainline traffic at mainline speeds through both countryside and station (if at all possible) are what make this such a challenge.

To my eye, Kadees look like real devices and what's more they look like entirely unlikely-on-the-prototype foreign real devices.

This is what the sunspace looks like currently... (Minories on the dining table in the foreground.) Edit: That space used to house a huge specimen Strelitzia every winter but it grew too big and I gave it away last year so that I could keep the railway set up. Priorities, you know...