Harlequin

I’ve had a Small Metro on my workbench for over a year. My first brass and white metal kit build. Too scary to work on. And I just had to buy a bigger box for my rolling stock kits... One day, one day! That’s what I keep telling myself...

Here's one: https://twitter.com/RHummBooks/status/1246754472241569792/photo/1 As RailWest suggested, it looks like the lever is parallel to the track and connected to the points by a crank.

Hi Schooner, Canals and Railways - a magical combination! It would be great to see my take on the Inglenook come to life in this form - but whatever trackplan you use will be wonderful. Since you say that space is not a limiting factor but you've chosen a size that is "do-able", how about increasing the space very slightly to allow the plan to breathe a bit more? To expand: Most people are limited by space and that imposes the biggest compromise on their layout designs, frequently with trackwork very close to the boundaries making it difficult to disguise the edges of the scene. You have the luxury of space and you could, if you wanted, add some space to the ends while leaving the railway plan the same size, so that the scene is no longer defined by the railway - it becomes a more naturally framed scene with a railway in it. You would have more room for road vehicles to turn and move around the yard, more room for buildings at the sides to be fully realised, more opportunity to hide the FY exit. And the extra cost on your time and effort shouldn't be that great - some of the increased area would just be more earth texture and more setts.

I think you can just about make out the levers of RailWest's Middle GF in Karau. It's always in the shade of the trees.

I write 2D drawing software for a living - have done for 20+ years - and we've always tried to make our program very intuitive for our users. If we had ever been given the chance to write a 3D program it would have looked a lot like Sketchup, it has a similar ethos. I love Sketchup so much that I (eventually) stumped up for a licence for the full version! (That's why I wasn't sure of the capabilities of the free version.)

Sorry, I screwed the link up. I have fixed it now. No, I really do mean, http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/index.htm

FWIW: I love Sketchup. (Couldn't get my mind around Fusion 360 yet). Sketchup's working method is very easy to get to grips with (to explain it in very simple terms: drawing 2d shapes then extruding them to 3d) and from that simple foundation you can go on to do very complex things if you need to. Not sure if the free online version will export STL files for 3D printing, though.

Hi everyone, greatwestern.org.uk is a great site for those interested in the GWR but I notice that it hasn't been updated for a long time now, there are some dead links and it's style is a bit old-fashioned. I'm worried that we might lose this valuable resource if no-one's looking after it. Names mentioned on the Home page are: John Daniel (copyright holder), Eric A. Meyer of CWRU and Neil Johan. Does anyone know if these gentlemen are able to update and maintain the site? Thanks,

Not so much for us inter-war GWR types, though... Mogul, Prairie, Collett coaches. That's it unless I've forgotten something. We desperately need more coaches from the period, as you've said before, Neal. Would it be too much to hope for a set of RTR Toplights? Or Dreadnoughts?

Yes, it would be good to have confirmation from independent sources. I'm using "Great Western Moguls and Prairies" by David Maidment, 2016. I can't see RCTS mentioned in the Bibliography...?

6320: No

The crank pin might just have not been tightened properly at the factory and worked loose. This is quite a common failing for new steam locos in my experience. Tightening it back up might be all that's needed - if you can get at it...

My book also says, No.

Is it fair to keep on characterising Dapol this way because you had a bad experience with a particular configuration of a particular product? I'm not surprised that Dapol were unable to say anything conclusive about Neal's problem because it may have been the first report of these symptoms they heard. It's still early days for this model.

You only need a turntable big enough to turn the locos likely to be used on your branch line. Here’s Launceston: https://maps.nls.uk/view/105992299 (annoyingly in the very bottom left corner of the map). Notice that there are two stations right next to each other. I’m only thinking about the GWR terminus to the North. From the top: Back/mileage siding Goods shed siding End loading dock Platform loop Release loop for both platform and goods loop either side Goods loop / cattle dock / engine shed headshunt Kickback engine shed Kickback turntable The goods yard is splayed out for access but everything else is tightly packed. The TT and engine shed are very neatly arranged. You can see how similar it is to your plans and flipped over and compressed it might fit very nicely into your space.

That's a lovely plan and concept. I see that although your layout is end to end, the station itself is a through-station and the loop really is a passing loop, not a terminus run round loop as I had assumed. So please excuse my incorrectly labelled switches above! P.S. Don't forget the trap points on exit from the goods yards...

Yes, and Yes. You might have section switches on your end-to-end so that you can shunt at one end while locos at the other end don't move without having to set the points against them. Even if the entire layout is one section I think it would still be wise to isolate the loco release spur and feed it through a switch. It's a very simple thing to do and gives you some insurance if your plans change in the future. (Just having a layout that you can run stock on changes things!) The wiring could be more minimal than I showed, as Chimer suggests, and I did think about leaving out the feed at the toe end of the loco release points but then it gets more complicated to explain and understand. The drawing shows the most obviously understandable solution - the one that most people would be comfortable with.

The loco release spur at the end of the platform needs to have power for its whole length because at this stage you can't guarantee what operations you might use it for. You might need to drive a loco to the very far end for some reason so give it equal importance and attention as any other bit of track. It is usual to allow the power to be turned off for the loco release spur separately from the platform track and the run round loop so that another loco can pick up the train in the platform while the arriving loco stands in the spur. (This operation may or may not have happened prototypically but, again, you can't know for sure at this stage if you'll ever need to do that so it's wise to allow for it.) The layout will probably be divided up into sections, each with its own switch on the control panel so that you can control the movements of more than one loco and for fault finding. So it's a very small overhead to add another section switch for just the loco release spur. In that case the typical arrangement might be something like this: Only two switches are needed on the control panel for this area. There’s no need to turn off the power to change the points. Notice that it doesn't matter in what combination the points are thrown (or how the frogs are switched), the insulators in the frog rails prevent shorts through the rails. You may get a short if you drive a loco over a point that is set against it but that's a different matter. The platform and run round tracks take their power directly from a switch, not relying on point blade contact, thus improving reliability.

Since the middle driving axle is sprung, I wonder if leaving it unsupported might be part of the problem?

Here are a few photos of my sound installation: I removed the plastic coal load and to improve the sound, I cut a hole in the tank, covered with insect mesh, then glued chunky loco coal in using Copydex. The gluing takes a few iterations to ensure that the mesh is hidden and to build the shape you want. The result is that sound will now come directly from the speaker, through the grille, and between the coal lumps, instead of being bounced around in the plastic tender body and coming out underneath. I used a Zimo 40*20*9 speaker because I thought it gave the best sound of the speakers I tried without requiring any grinding of the tender weight block. The corners of the 3D printed speaker had to be rounded off to allow it to sit down in the cast metal speaker well and thus allow the body to fit down properly. Back together: The running plates line up, there was no feeling of the body flexing when the screws were tightened so it's just about a perfect fit and it sounds great (within the limitations of the sound project.) I have used this technique before but this is the first time I've been able to show the tender with a partial load instead of brimming with coal and that made me realise that it would be better to (a.) weather the coal space before fitting the coal and (b.) have some finer grade bits around while being careful they don't block the grille. The advantage of using Copydex is that I can easily remove the load and do that one day. So, room to improve but I think the basic technique is sound (ha ha!). P.S. If you're fitting your own sugar cube speaker in the smokebox it's very important that it is sealed to the clip-on enclosure otherwise you might get buzzing on sounds like the whistles. I used Copydex for that too.

Hi Roger, I'll send you an email. In the meantime, I suggest you edit your post above to remove the email address so that spammers and fraudsters can't see it.

Hi David, You have to switch the frog one way or another and so the method of switching doesn't really affect the answer to your question. If you do the live point blades modification then you have to switch the frog externally. The rails beyond the frog can either be electrically connected to the frog and take all power from it, or have their own power feed and be insulated from the frog. Aside: If you think you might like to use the point blades to switch the frog now but leave open the option to use an external switch later, then there's a simple method here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/109951-electrofrog-point-isolations/&do=findComment&comment=4174997 (Read further back for Suzie's written explanation.)

@Harlequin is confused and doesn’t know what to make of this one! Actually, having thought about it, I largely agree with you, David. It’s the mixture of scenic, part scenic and non-scenic scattered around the room that worries me. And the proportions. But it’s hard to see how to arrange the parts any differently without going multi-level, which brings new problems. I think something different would make better use of the space... but Chris said in the OP we’re not allowed to use that ploy in this exercise!

What do you mean by basic CVs @BMS? The decoder will drive the loco perfectly well with its default settings. Any tweaks after that are personal taste and how @checkrail sets them may not be how you would set them. (Things like acceleration, deceleration, top speed, active braking, etc...) BTW: If checkrail's model was Non-sound DCC fitted by Dapol then the decoder is probably not Zimo. The manual says it will be an "Imperium" in that case. But the only sure way to tell is either look at it or read it's identity in the controller. (Dapol sound-fitted models will be Zimo according to the manual.)

On a Mac?